Re: the Affordable Care Act, I was looking online at the current thinking on the public option...

[Fridays Child]

and I found this: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/15/the-public-option-alive-and-well-in-obamacare/

It says that "in 2014, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the small agency that runs the federal civil service, will administer at least two nationwide health plans to compete against private insurance. OPM will be responsible for negotiating the new health plans’ medical-loss ratio, profit margins, and premiums.

"The OPM-sponsored plans will automatically qualify to compete against private health plans in the new state exchanges and thus will not be subject to the same qualifications and standards outlined in Obamacare for private plans in the exchanges. OPM must contract with an already existing large insurer, because such a plan must be offered in 60 percent of states in year one.

"These government-sponsored plans will be the only plans that can compete nationwide under a separate set of government rules. Moreover, such plans would have a clear advantage over private plans in the exchanges."

It's clearly a scare tactic-style article designed to rally health care industry lobbyists. And the fact that it's from the Heritage Foundation even further exposes the writer's agenda. But, is it true? Will we really have an option to buy our insurance from better priced federally operated plans, no matter which state we live in?

If this is true and the threat to the big health insurance companies is high, will this option become a bargaining chip for Congressional 'pukes to strong-arm Democrats with? If so, we need to do everything we can to convince our Congressional Democrats to protect it.

[Azathoth]

1. It's true. The multistate plan provision was added to compensate for the lack of a public option

The Obama Administration has been rolling this out very quietly. The plans will be gradually phased in, starting with availability in 60% of state exchanges in 2014 all the way up to 100% of states by 2017. Moreover, one of the plans is required by law to be run by a non-profit entity. More info:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/health/us-to-sponsor-health-insurance-plans-nationwide.html

[Fridays Child]

2. Thanks for the link. This is good news.

But, if the Heritage Foundation is trying to rally the fascists against it, I worry that Boehner and Co. will try to stick it to the American people by dangling this in front of Dems as something that can be stopped in exchange for leaving Medicare and Social Security alone or raising taxes on the wealthy.

On the other hand, though, if one of these plans will be the same one that insures federal employees, including members of Congress, 'pukes are going to have a pretty hard time making the case for stopping it. I think one thing that has long resonated with voters is the idea that citizens should have access to health care that's at least as affordable and comprehensive as that which is provided to Congress and federal employees.

[Fridays Child]

3. Kicking for more input and discussion, hopefully.

[OKNancy]

4. Will it be offered in states where they opted out of the state exchange?

I'm lazy this early in the morning and don't feel like reading the whole article.

Will it be offered on the Federal exchange for residents of states where the governor opted out?

[Fridays Child]

5. I think it will be offered in all states.

When the feds taking charge of states that opt out, they may offer the same national plans as as the ones federal employees can choose from. But, in my understanding, these plans will eventually be available to everyone, starting with 60% of all states in 2014 and including 100% of all states by 2017. I don't understand why we have to wait, at all. Even Boehner acknowledges that the ACA is the law of the land. But that appears to be the scheduling, as far as I can see.