If a 'public option' doesn't survive the Senate how will costs be controlled?

[bigtree]

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and the insurance industry have indicated that they're comfortable about the future of the public option which is the most significant element in the health insurance legislation that would drive costs down.

"The Senate remains very unlikely to pass any bill containing an unbridled public plan that potentially could ultimately threaten significant price deflation for US sales," Morgan Stanley pharmaceutical analyst Andrew Baum told Reuters.

"We continue to feel very comfortable with our projection that any eventual healthcare reform is likely relatively benign to the pharmaceutical part of the healthcare value chain," Baum said in a note to clients.

In other words, the industry doesn't feel like their profits are at any risk of falling because there really doesn't appear to be any effective means in the House bill to drive costs down, and, whatever compromise they've constructed is expected to be eviscerated or neutered in the Senate.

Where are the provisions in the House legislation which are expected to control premium costs and drive them down through competition; are they going to be effective (how?), and will those survive the Senate?

[MNDemNY]

1. Who cares? health reform is health reform, we just need the damn win.

[Demeter]

2. We Get Some Ethical Legislators Who Write a GOOD Bill

and a President who fights to pass it intact.

[Echo In Light]

4. ...mm, yeah, but they don't work for The People, see, they work for Corporate America.

So...

[onehandle]

3. Tax the rich. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. LOL!

:spray: Don't hold your breath. Really, don't. :silly:

[RDANGELO]

5. Taking away the anti trust exemption should help.

It should stop the larger companies from blocking out the smaller ones in the exchange.

[bigtree]

6. that's a good measure

. . . if the FTC actually exercises its authority under the bill. Anti-competitive activity wouldn't be protected behind inadequate state regs. And this administration is likely to be aggressive in its enforcement (from what they say).

Is that provision expected to survive the corporacrat gauntlet in the Senate?

[TheKentuckian]

7. Having to spend 85% on health care should help as well (nt)

[robinlynne]

9. yes, I forgot that part.

[robinlynne]

8. there are none. (provisons to keep costs down) As a matter of fact it guarantees

keeping the price high placing the prices of the "public option" on par with "the market", instead of the other way around.

[bigtree]

15. I saw that

. . . and the bit about 'negotiating' with the market. I can't see that happening in our favor.

[OHdem10]

10. The Cost Savings are for the US Government. Remember how

some Politician is always screaming--these entitlement programs
are going to break us. Medicare is near failure. Something
must be done about Medicare.

This whole so called Reform is simply reforming Medicare so
the Govermnet will not have to spend so much money on it.
Democratic version of Privatization. Medicare Recipients have
to buy a policy to fill in the gaps that Medicare does not
provide.

Legislators are great at double speak. When they talk about
Cost savings, are they talking about bring down the costs to
the government or for individual Americans?? You decide.
It would appear that it is likely most Americans will be paying
more.

Yes my current HIP will go up about 17%. Just got notice from
Insurance Company. And it will continue to go up.

My only point is listen carefully and question Polkiticians specifically
on issues.

They keep referring to "bending the curve". That means bringing
down costs to government. IMO, this has been their major objective
along with expanding coverage to a few more Americans. Keeping
it an Employer-Based system and just expanding it does not bring
down costs for Indiduals necessarily.

A Conmservative Republican from Georgia said on CNN over the weekend
This bill does not bring down costs for the people, the third
party plan would bring down costs . He was endorsing Single Payer
in fact he does not like single payer, just explaining about bringing
down costs.

[bigtree]

16. that's a good point

Most of the cost-controlling emphasis is on saving Uncle Sam from exploding costs, with schemes to raise enough revenue to subsidize aspects of the program. But it looks like insurance companies and others who are saddling folks with higher and higher rates for coverage are getting protection of their income in this legislation. It's one of the main concerns of the conservative members of Congress that insurance companies don't lose money on this deal or are shut out of the profit game by competition or by choice of the consumer.

[Oregone]

11. It wont control costs in its current form anyway, as is

This reform isn't about cost control. Its about the Democrats scoring a win!

[abluelady]

12. And What Are Those Costs Going to Be

How will they ever lower costs while covering all pre-existing conditions? How will they lower costs covering the illnesses and disease they are going to see with the newly insured? Without a public option, I don't see lots of benefits to the reform we are going to be experiencing.

[harun]

14. If a public option doesn't survive the Senate, the Democratic Party will not survive

the next election.

[Lilith Velkor]

17. They won't be. n/t