Big Insurance

Why must we always surrender?

by: Michael Kwiatkowski

Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:00

As Ian Welsh points out, what passes for a public option in the bills now being considered (a "public option" that isn't even guaranteed to pass, nor should it in its current state) is not scaring Big Insurance or Big Pharmaceutical companies.  Why is this?  In an earlier blog entry, Welsh describes the reasons why (I've boldfaced the most relevant points):

Because it has no built in customer base, which increases its upfront expenses for advertising and a sales-force significantly.  People who have company healthcare plans can't join.

Doctors, hospitals and so on are not required to accept it, and providers will not accept it if it provides below market rates unless it also provides large numbers of patients, which it can do because it isn't pre-populated and isn't a good buy for insureds unless it can provide a low premium, which requires it to pay low rates.

It must make a profit in order to return the money up-fronted to it, and it has only 10 years to do that, but it has to start from scratch, as noted above.

The most that can be said in favor of the weak "public option" is that it MIGHT be used as the dumping ground for the poorest patients, who for various reasons aren't qualified to receive Medicaid - and even then, it's unlikely that such patients will be granted access to adequate health care under the program.

But instead of fighting to kill this pretense of reform, which will undoubtedly be used as an excuse to kill any and all attempts to bring genuine reform to the table for at least another decade and perhaps even a generation, it's not anything that would actually work that continues to be promoted, but rather, it's the weak "public option" still being talked about as though it's somehow the only thing worth fighting for.

There's More... :: (6 Comments, 644 words in story)

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox