Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Beyond "opt-out", "opt-in", and "trigger" public options

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:41 PM
Original message
Beyond "opt-out", "opt-in", and "trigger" public options
According to the AP,

A new idea being discussed was national nonprofit insurance plans that would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the popular Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., a key centrist, was enthusiastic about the idea, which she's proposed in different forms in the past. "I think it bodes well for being able to do what we want to do, which is to create greater choice and options in the marketplace," she said.

Liberals were cool to the proposal, holding out for a fully government-run plan.


These nonprofit private plans would be instead of a public option.

If we ever get universal coverage, this is probably the form it will take, which is unfortunately the least economic way of going about it. It doesn't provide the administrative savings of single payer (still requires multiple systems of paperwork and liasoning w/ hospitals, etc.), and multiple administrative structures. It would be similar to the Dutch system, but on a much larger scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Any of these ring a bell?
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 05:25 PM by Ms. Toad
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Kaiser Permanente
Rocky Mountain Health Plans

Hint: They are all non-profit private plans, one of which is truly national, another of which offers insurance in a significant number of states. None of them offer rates significantly better than their for-profit counterparts.

Edited to correct a typo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. ...
THRIVE! :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Whoops.
You meant "for-profit", not "non-profit" counterparts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Fixed. Thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. It would be better than nothing, as long as it addresses the needs of those who are now uninsured
and keeps insurance companies from denying claims or canceling insurance to those in need, as well as dealing with the preexisting conditions problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Those restrictions are actually imposed by the rest of the bill
(which will apply to the non-profit insurance plans mentioned above that already dominate the market).

Non-profit insurance is really nothing new - what is new is all of the other restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. a non profit administered by a government agency would be new, wouldn't it?

This still helps take the profit motive out of health care decisions, and it creates a regulatory agency (kinda) to help the little guy deal with the corporations.


Not my first choice by any means, but better than nothing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The concept doesn't really make sense.
Non-profit agencies are still fully independent businesses. They just don't have making a profit as a goal - so the profit motive is already out of health care decisions. The non-profit itself couldn't be administered directly by the government without turning it into - essentially - a government agency (the public option).

Non-profits insurance companies will already be part of the exchange (indirect administration) - so I can't see this proposal really changes anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 15th 2017, 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC