Sebelius: Single-Payer Health Care Not In Plans (but she explicitly talks about public option)

[lindisfarne]

We need to make sure, however, that the "co-op" plan proposed by Conrad never becomes synonymous with a national public option.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105442888

As debate gets under way over Obama's initiative to revamp health care, Republican opposition has centered on one of the key pillars of the president's proposal: the so-called public option — a publicly funded insurance plan that would likely compete against private insurers.

A public health insurance plan, Sebelius said, will put pressure on private insurers to keep costs competitive. "And that's a good thing," she says. "I think that's a good thing for the American public. Medicare right now has lower overhead costs than private insurers."

Republicans argue that upward of 100 million Americans would opt out of private insurance in favor of a public plan if such a plan were available. That figure comes from a study by the Lewin Group, a consulting group owned by Ingenix, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, but it is a selective representation of the study's findings.
...
"The whole idea of the public option has been difficult, in part, because some of the opposition has described it as a potential for a, you know, draconian scenario that was never part of the discussion in the first place," Sebelius says. "So, disabusing people of what is not going to happen is often difficult, because there's no tangible way to do that."

====
82 million in Germany, not all buy private insurance, yet the heavily regulated private insurance market works fine alongside the health coverage provided by the government for ALL citizens.

307 million in US. 1 in 4 (83 million) get health insurance through federal government (46 million Medicare, 11 million military, 8 million SCHIP, remainder federal employees or various other smaller programs). Of those who are not eligible for health insurance through the federal government (307 -83 million) = 224 million: 1 in 3 either is uninsured (48 million+) or underinsured (25 million+).

Even if 119 million of these 224 million joined the public option, as Grassley fears, there would still be more left over than the entire population of Germany.

Just why wouldn't private insurance survive in US, if it can in Germany?

[Merlot]

1. Can't give the people what they want, can we?

"Republicans argue that upward of 100 million Americans would opt out of private insurance in favor of a public plan if such a plan were available."

WTF? How can they even make this argument? I know, they're repubs and very thick headed. But how can they sit there and say they are against the thing that 100 million Americans want?

And why aren't the dems all over this argument?

sigh.....

[Cleita]

2. Too many of our Dems are corporate whores. n/t

[newfie11]

10. You got that right N/T

[lindisfarne]

3. Grassley made this argument in an article in Politico. His claim that it would wipe out private

insurance is based on nothing (and my example of Germany shows how wrong he is). But what he's really concerned with - but knows politically he can't say it - is it *would* significantly decrease the profit of the private insurance companies.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21937.html

[Merlot]

4. Who cares if we wipe out private insurance?

Many industries become obsolete.

Buggy whips. Beta players.

It's just business as usual.

[lindisfarne]

6. Are you arguing with me? I think if you reread, you'll see I agree with you! n/t

[Merlot]

11. No argument, just a retorical question.

I'm so angry and disgusted at the mess we are in CAUSED by insurance companies.

[veritasvg]

7. Well...

...we don't care.

But the insurance companies do, and they own the country.

[YewNork]

9. The insurers do. That's why they're doing everything they can to control the reform efforts

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Of course it would survive, just as it survives with...

Medicare and the Indian Health Service-- just with less profit and more regulation.

I suspect that the primary problem getting something passed is the problem with getting anything passed-- most lawmakers are stupid, lazy, ignorant, or all three. And that has little to do with political parties.

The staffs write the laws while meeting with lobbyists and checking the direction of the breaking winds of the elected officials. A good staffer will tell the congresscritter what's in the bill being proposed and a good, or at least halfway decent, congresscritter will ask what's in it and come up with a few good questions for the staffer. Maybe even take five minutes out of bloviating, fundraising, and horn-tooting to make a sensible suggestion for the legislation.

There are perhaps six Senators and 12 House members who have a decent handle on what a healthcare bill should be, and they probably don't agree on too many of the details. Everyone else is sucking up to one side or the other hoping to pull out something for bragging points.

And we sit here expecting something good to come out of all of this.

(The miracle is that sometimes they actually do come up with some good laws-- hopefully this will be one of those times.)

[YewNork]

8. Private insurance would survive. But you're cutting into their profits.

They'd rather have a system that covers 80% with higher profits, than a system that covers 100% with lower profits.
Their goal is to make money, not to see that everyone receives coverage.

[YewNork]

12. GOP afraid that 100 million+ would move to public plan if it were available

Republicans argue that upward of 100 million Americans would opt out of private insurance in favor of a public plan if such a plan were available.

The question to ask would be - Why?

Some would move to it on principle - they believed in the concept of a government sponsored health insurance system.
Some would take it because it's the only option they had. The private companies declined to cover them.
And some might take it because they actually thought it was a better plan.