Would you support price controls and benchmarks in lieu of a public option?

[Tony_FLADEM]

If there is no competition with health insurance companies because of no public option, would you support the Department of Health and Human Services working with the American Medical Association to design benchmarks and guidelines regarding various aspects of health care costs that would be enacted into reform and updated every few years?

On Edit:


There would be tax penalties and fines for those that did not stay within the guidelines for costs.

For example, if it is determined a procedure costs $5,000 and the medical professional charges more than $5,750 - a 15% profit margin - the federal government would levy a fine on the excess that went outside the profit margin.

[PDJane]

1. No.

[donco6]

2. Does it matter what I want?

Really?

[ipaint]

9. No. It doesn't matter what any of us need.

If the votes aren't there for the logical incremental next step of phasing in medicare for all they are not there for a strong robust public option or any version thereof that threatens the insurance monopoly now or in the future.

[donco6]

11. And with a government REQUIRED insurance premium revenue -

The insurance corps will be here long after all of us are dead.

[Tony_FLADEM]

21. Under this system health insurance companies would become

less relevant because bargaining power would matter less. So in a way this would hurt the health insurance companies.

[donco6]

29. Under single payer, insurance co.s become superfluous.

But that ain't gonna happen, either.

[QC]

48. That depends. How much money do you have? n/t

[tsuki]

3. No, too easy for Republicans to roll back, as they did in Florida. nt

[SharonAnn]

4. No, because the Insurance industry would lie, cheat, and steal (as usual).

According to studies, it takes about three years or less for a regulated industry to "capture" the regulatory department and bend the department to their will.

You can see it everywhere.

[Tony_FLADEM]

22. Health insurance companies would become less relevant

because the economies of scale and negotiating power of health insurance companies would not be required to bring down costs.

[Avalux]

5. NO. I want Medicare improved and expanded to cover everyone. n/t

[Tony_FLADEM]

23. Medicare would be more solvent under this system

because costs would be under control and more known.

[foxfeet]

6. Benchmarks without sanctions are useless.

[Tony_FLADEM]

24. There would be fines if the costs went beyond a set margin of profit.

[Captain Hilts]

7. NO, because it does not guarantee Ins. Co. will sell me insurance. They now won't because I'm unemp

[Tony_FLADEM]

25. You might not need insurance if prices go down and are predictable each year

.

[annabanana]

8. Self regulation has worked so well in the past. .

:sarcasm:

[aquart]

10. NO! Next question.

[Zodiak]

12. Lots and lots of regulation?

Sure...if we had to start this push again, punitive levels of regulation would be a viable option....regulation that enforces health insurance companies to price everyone according to ability to pay and pay whatever is legally determined to be medically necessary no questions asked.

I could go for a system like that.

But then again, the toothpaste is already out the tube about our strategy. We cannot suddenly shift gears like that.

Also, very few companies would stay in the health insurance business if they feel the regulations won't let them make oodles of cash like the other insurance companies. Relying on the market may blow up in our face in this case, and no one will have insurance.

So really, a government run system that is guaranteed to be there (like a public option or single payer) is the only viable system if you consider people's health first. But of course, we don't care about health; we consider the "market" first...and so here we are.

[GodlyDemocrat]

13. Absolutely not ... This is a fast track way to create massive shortages in health care

Doctors are not the enemy. They have gone through school and done residency for at least 12 years and incurred massive debt along the way, all the while being expected to maintain the highest of academic and work performance. They deserve to be compensated fairly, and yes that means well into the six figures.

Now on pharmecuticals and medical equipment, I would not support absolute price controls, but I would have no problem tying the maximum price you can charge in the States to the lowest prices charged in the developed world and require that any slightly altered product manufacturers or drug companies make to get around this rule must also be offered in the States. This would definitely cause a diplomatic row, so maybe we should pull out of Afghanistan before we do this.

[Tony_FLADEM]

19. I agree with you that Doctors are not the enemy

If Doctors on average charge $10,000 for a procedure, why should another get away with charging $25,000 as an example. Under a 15% range, they could charge up to $11,500 without any problem. Also, this would not apply to just Doctors, but others in the health care system.

[GodlyDemocrat]

32. I would not oppose this

You're referring to what is known in economics as price discrimination.

[Tony_FLADEM]

36. Health insurance companies would lose power under this system

This would take away any unfair advantages the health care companies have, and this would force them to compete with one another.

[GodlyDemocrat]

44. They would lose power with doctors ...

And the uninsured would benefit as well, but how would this bring down the cost of insurance for individuals?

[Tony_FLADEM]

52. Insurance companies would lose their advantage in the health care system

You would not need the bargaining power of insurance companies to bring down costs. Therefore, health insurance companies would need to become more competitive to stay in existence. In some instances, patients would not need health insurance companies, because they could predict what the cost might be.

[GodlyDemocrat]

64. OK, I get what you're saying

You present a very interesting and compelling economic analysis.

[Tony_FLADEM]

67. Thank You

[FLDCVADem]

54. There are many reasons

why one doctor might charge more than another doctor.

No, I wouldn't want to see this implemented.

[Tony_FLADEM]

56. I'm taking about charging more than a certain range of profit

And it does not just apply to doctors, but others i.e. medical equipment providers.

[FLDCVADem]

59. I understand what you're suggesting

I just don't agree with it.

[Edweird]

14. Not a chance.

[Warpy]

15. No, nothing that doesn't compete with those bastards

and force them to get honest is going to work.

They'll always cheat us out of what we paid for in order to goose the profits.

Always.

[demigoddess]

16. no, they will just get around it.

somehow

[handmade34]

17. NO

healthcare reform without the public option is not serious reform. Healthcare should not be left to the market. period

[Stinky The Clown]

18. No

Period

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. No

[tnlefty]

26. No.

Expanded Medicare should be the option for all of us, but it should be the public option now.

[HughMoran]

27. NO!!!!!!!!!

Public option or end of civility in the country.

[demodonkey]

28. Absolutely NO nt

[vincna]

30. No way!

Price controls = shortages - Every time.

[Penguin31]

31. No. When I signed up for this, I wanted Single-payer universal Medicare. Period (n/t)

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[crazy_vanilla]

34. hell no - either public option or nothing, we've given too much ground nt

[OHdem10]

35. The Important requirement is that there is government involvement

in the Program. Otherwise, you end Medicare. It is that
simple. End Medicare and there is no guarantee whatsoever
that people will be to keep their Insurance. Under A Republican
Governance--these subsidies are simply too expensive and
people can be dropped.

It is imperative Government be involved. This is why the Public
Option made it so simple. Keep Medicare in place as well as
lower prices.

[rhett o rick]

37. In a word: FUCKNO, but have a nice day. nm

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. The last 30 years (not to mention the years before FDR) have proven one thing indisputably

Corporations are 100% incapable of self regulation. And the American Medical Association will not do any better. They have made it clear what side they're on, and it ain't ours.

[Tony_FLADEM]

41. I was just using the American Medical Association as an example

Under this system, evidence would be used to determine pricing not a "free market" that does not exist in health care because it is a necessity. If pricing went beyond a set range there would be financial penalties.

[mmonk]

39. Short answer, no. They have too much power and too many allies.

It will be costly and they will just lobby for more taxpayer money as it doesn't work as it supposed to.

[BlueIdaho]

40. Government enforced priceponts will be a disaster.

You think we're getting our nose bloodied over a public option - just wait until republicans can talk about government interfering with the marketplace. Every time prices increase anywhere they would blame it on government meddling in a free market. Shit - we'd get crucified for decades.

[Tony_FLADEM]

45. If you can prove something costs a certain amount it is not a political liability

[BlueIdaho]

53. And thats why we're winning the public option debate right now - right? Numbers?

The republicans and their zillion dollar lobbyists don't give a shit about numbers and they don't have to. They will just look into the camera's lens and say - If the government got out of the way your insurance and deductible costs would go down - and people will believe them because its simple. Its wrong - oh my god we know its dead wrong - but its simple and people like simple. Period.

[Tony_FLADEM]

57. We are losing the public option debate because people on Medicaid

and Medicare don't want there programs cut. No one is willing to give up anything to help those who don't have any insurance.

[BlueIdaho]

66. Exactly - and why do they think their programs will be cut?

There is NOTHING in current legislation that threatens that but some right wing wag lied. That wag looked into that lens with great sincerity and said "The president wants to take away your Medicare/Medicaid,V.A. to pay for the public option." Its a lie but it works - simple narratives beat convoluted facts and figures every time.

You will never go broke underestimating the the American public.

[Tony_FLADEM]

69. Some of these people at the town hall meetings they act like children

I am surprised by that. I thought these people would be more mature.

[BlueIdaho]

73. The republicans have made a science of appealing to the worst in people

If they can get people to fear enough and to hate enough they can get them to do anything - even fighting against their own best interests. Their playbook has been simple since the days of RayGunn - look sincere and lie your ass off - make up numbers if you absolutely have to but be sure to scare the shit out of everyone - then promise you will keep them safe from the threat you invented.

How many more times do we have to see it before we recognize it? They tap into lizard brain survival stuff - blood, puss, sweat, piss, and the lot. Meanwhile we're pretending its a Harvard debating society.

We need to develop simple messages and repeat them often...

A public option will save you money and guarantee you stay with your doctor.

[BlueIdaho]

74. Sorry - Dupe

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. No.

The system is complicated enough as it is. This just adds another layer of confusion.

[Tony_FLADEM]

49. The system is complicated now because there is lots of cost shifting

and there is a lack of transparency in costs. This would change under a evidence based pricing system.

[tosh]

43. No.

[unkachuck]

46. nope....

....price controls and benchmarks would only last until the next repug administration, if that long....

[Tony_FLADEM]

55. If the Repug administration interfered with the evidence based pricing system

and prices went up they would be voted out of power.

[havocmom]

47. No.

Wages have been stagnant for decades. Workers have lost real wage $$. Telling the mega corporations to play nice is not fucking enough.

[nc4bo]

50. no.

[QC]

51. No. n/t

[valerief]

58. Tax penalties and fines that won't be collected. Regulation would be

hacked away within the decade.

No. Once a public option is in place, it's like Social Security or Medicare. It stays.

[Tony_FLADEM]

63. The insurance companies and health care patients

would have the information to enforce this, therefore fines would be collected.

[valerief]

83. Doubt it. nt

[GrantDem]

60. NO

[stlsaxman]

61. No.

[dysfunctional press]

62. no.

[closeupready]

65. Focusing on this is wasted energy, IMO.

unrec

[HarveyDarkey]

68. Hell no

Public option is not an option either. No compromise, single payer or you're out of office.

[titoresque]

70. No dice!

[Laelth]

71. I have no problem with that. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Vidar]

72. No.

[MadHound]

75. DHHS and the AMA "determining" (read fixing) health care prices? HAHAHAHAHA!

Let me guess, you're all in favor of both the fox and the coyote guarding the henhouse while you're away on vacation.

No, I'm not in favor of this at all. I'm only marginally in favor of a public option, only because it is at least an incremental step in the right direction.

Real change is true single payer, marginal change is the public option, anything else is simply faux change.

[Tony_FLADEM]

76. I was just using them as an example

The Federal Government could outsource this task to a private sector company that is independent of the Medical Industry. That could be determined. The point is to have evidence and transparency in the costing of health care.

[MadHound]

78. Bad example, getting worse

Outsource to an "independent" private sector company. Hell, the billions it would cost to buy off that "independent" company would simply be written off and/or passed along to the consumer by the insurance industry. At least with a government agency there is some modicum of oversight. We're talking a trillion dollar industry here, money to be made, buying off a private company is nothing.

[Jakes Progress]

77. I started to say what difference does it make

what I support since no one asked me. But that's not true. I have been asked. I was asked when I campaigned for Obama and put up signs for Obama and solicited funds for Obama. The citizens I talked with wanted to know what his plans were. So I guess the reply is "What difference does it make what a politician says when he is running for office?"

But me? I won't support it and I won't be out there doing all the stuff I did last Fall either.

[Tony_FLADEM]

81. If you believe in something, you should do the best you can to make happen

Don't let this health care issue discourage you from participating in politics. This is an isssue that effects every single American. The country needs to be more united if we are going to get the needed reforms. Unfortunately, those who have an interest in keeping the status-quo are doing everything to divide the country.

[Jakes Progress]

82. Sounds good. But

the people I voted for and worked for are doing the dividing. I'm not out of politics, but I can't see me putting in a thousand hours just to give more money to war and corporations.

I do believe in something. I will work to make it happen. It just seems I helped elect more status quo. I won't do that again.

[eridani]

79. If ALL health care expenses were limited to $100-$200 per month per adult, period.

No copays or deductibles. If the Netherlands can do it, we can.

[quiller4]

80. I'd prefer strong price controls to a public option provided there

were also restrictions on policy rescission and reform of previous condition limitations

[TheKentuckian]

84. Market based solutions are like relying on prayer as your health plan

The public option is the gun to the head of the insurance industry to be good citizens or go bye-bye. It is a last ditch desperate attempt to give the industry one last chance to provide value.

I'm against any further compromise other than serious benchmarks that will trigger single payer if they fail to work. In fact, if they keep up I propose just codifying that with no further input or money other than for getting and accessing those numbers. We'll either fix the problem on the cheap or have the industry ceded to the government.