All throughout the northwest, criminal prosecution is done privately. It's pretty much the same, except less cost to the taxpayer. There's no CEO deciding anything.

i know...i know. i just couldn't resist. :)

Would be an interesting world.

"Sorry ma'am, we discovered that this issue with your violent husband is from a pre-existing conflict and will not cover your safety"

Can you imagine how great it would be to be a violent criminal? Just figure out which households don't have private law enforcement and have a field day.

I'm really hoping you're not serious.

awesome. hopefully i'll catch it later!

But in your example, the guy is able to go immediately under the public option, as soon as he has a cough. That's pretty optimistic.

Private prosecution as an option isn't a bad thing. But who handles the 99% of court cases where someone doesn't want to pony up the cash for private attorneys? It's still necessary to be a public/private hybrid.

Just as personal protection is a public/private hybrid. You have your police force but can pay privately for better protection.

Almost as scary as if the federal government controlled all law enforcement in the U.S.

At least when it's run by state/county, corruption can be localized. Nothing we can do about a bad federal system, whether it be healthcare or law enforcement.

You can vote out the people who are in charge of it. The same as you would do if you don't like the direction of the current military regime (another socialist venture by our government).

I don't think I'd consider the FBI "bad". I think they do a pretty good job.

as an aside, thank god we didnt allow for the privatization of Social Security looking back at the last few years.

I hope that's the way it works out but you're only taking the most optimistic factor of a greater equation.

-Lots of people put things off anyway
-Many other people will overload the public option, costing taxpayers
-The possibility of doctor/clinic shortages for the public option.

Who knows how all of these things will add up? It's easy to take the most optimistic factor, and assume that's how things will work with everyone, just as if it's easy to say that people will flood doctors and overwhelm the system for minor issues.

It all sounds very convincing when you ignore the risks.

That rhetoric is so meaningless, especially at the federal level. People went out and voted for a Democratic majority, but they still need Republicans to agree with them to do anything.

not agree, input. Thats consistent to what I clamored for when the shoe was on the other foot.

Then why are the Dems so scared shitless to do it on their own? Prove us wrong!

I know this is a favored point about other countries, but I don't buy it. This isn't Australia. Nothing you can say will convince me this is Australia.

Why not address the risks? Why is the argument always, "health care is good and people should have it". Everyone agrees with that. Then it's, "other countries can do it", despite the differences that have been pointed out. The risks are never addressed. That's why I feel they're being discounted, or ignored.

Nicole Kidman.

If every other country does this and it should be so easy, why haven't the Dems even pitched a Universal Health Care plan here? That's not what's on the table, I don't think some people realize that. This plan only covers poor people. As I said before, I'd be more in favor of a true single-payer plan (depending on the plan), then a "public option" that most people have to pay for and that risks the entire health infrastructure.

After reading some of the recent quotes coming out of the White House, I'm pretty sure that you will get your request. The Dems and Obama seem to have shifted their talking points away from seeking anything bipartisian (which was, by and large, a charade I suspect) and will likely go it alone when they reconvene.

The logic is that people shoot down the idea of universal health care simply because they consider it "socialist" while ignoring that lots of things are "socialist" in the same way. You may not be that person but there's plenty of that in this debate.

Howard Dean just reiterated this on CNBC as well. The negotiations are now between the Blue Dogs and the liberal Left. once thats done it'll likely go to vote in some form or another and the Grassley quotes will thrown around as the ribbon on the package as to why the GOP was left standing by the side....

which stinks IMO.

Good. He should keep his campaign promises. In the Democrats' time to show us their policies in action. They might not have a better time. What they can come up with should be the best they can do. Anything they "can't" do is their own fault, and shouldn't be a talking point in future elections. I'm so tired of the rhetoric about how much smarter Democrats are, and how they know what's right for the country. Do it! If they don't do it they were full of shit all along. It's so easy to say that stuff when you're out of power. When you're in power, the candyland hypotheticals aren't enough. The campaigns and the elections are over. Stop campaigning and start delivering the country you've promised, the country from your visions.

I they're struggling to get things through with 60 senators and the president, I think it would be a lot tougher with 57-58 senators and the president. Once a bill hits the floor now, republicans are powerless to stop it. All that changes with a 1-2 seat gain.

At this point, my head is spinning from all the "plans". Here's what I want to know:

1. How much is it going to cost now?
2. How much will it save 5-10 years down the road?
3. How much will it increase coverage/coverage options?
4. If there is increased coverage, what are the steps to improve our infrastructure (to limit the chance of wait times)?
5. Is there any kind of rationing in the plan? (not necessarily a deal killer, but I'd like to know if it's there)

Until I can get somewhat straight answers on these 5 items, it seems pointless to debate. 1 and 2 are the most important as if we're loading up the deficit and not saving any costs long term, I don't think adding 15-20 million people to the health care rolls is worth it. If, however, we can find a cost effective way to increase coverage and setup some long term cost savings, I'm open to a debate on the specifics.

re: #5 - you do realize there's "rationing" today by the insurance companies right? they sit there and decide what policies to cover for who. and sure you're free to pay out-of-pocket for them, but under the new bill (assuming public option) you'd be free to keep your existing coverage and nothing would change for you, and if we assume single-payer i'd presume there'd still be the option to pay "out of pocket" for non-covered things (i can't imagine given the level of affluance in this country that the rich would let that option be removed from the table, especially given that many of our senators would probably elect to use it).

Why? Most of the people that would have been privatized were 20-30 years old. So, now they are 25-32. My 401K has been a roller coaster the past 3 years but I'm not worried for when I turn 55. And, I guarantee in the next 15-20 years it will gain a lot more than the treasury and I will be smart enough to move it to fixed accounts well before I retire (as would the private option discussed a few years back).

That's a huge assumption

What I really want to know is;

-How providing unlimited free care to millions of poor people not stretch our healthcare infrastucture? How would we deal with doctor/clinic shortages? What is the plan of the shortages are more severe than expected? (the federal government isn't very good at predicting the future)
-How much will the "public option" cost for someone in the middle class? If they employers don't drop coverage, why would they opt for the public option? What if nobody wants to pay for the public option?
-How will the "public option" effect private insurance companies? (since Obama's plan only covers poor people, this is critical).
-Can future middle class tax increases be completely ruled out?
-What happens if, as in MA, expenses turn to be several times more than expected?
-What happens if the "public option" loses money? I mean, is it part of the bill that it HAS to be self-sufficient, or is that just a prediction? It's easy to forsee a spiral where there's a lot of demand, premiums on the paying middle class have to go up, their employers drop health care, and they can't afford the spiraling premiums to subsidize the poor.

it's not an assumption....it's what has been said. you're making the assumption that you wont be able to.

There are a number of restrictions for who is eligible for the public option(too many IMO). There's no point in having a discussion if you believe the language of the House bill is a lie.

Of course there's rationing now. But I want to know the extent it will change/increase in the proposed plans. If we're going to increase the number of people covered and decrease the cost, the options are reducing the price and reducing the coverage. I don't think the latter will be enough to pay for it.

I also don't buy the "free to keep your current plan" garbage. If we're going to use the "other countries do it" mantra, this is what will happen (as this is what has happened there):

1. Employer provided health care will erode away after a public plan is instituted (it just makes good business sense)
2. We'll all be stuck with a public plan we pay our taxes for plus ponying up even more per month for a private supplemental plan (what many do in Canada/UK).
3. We'll see higher waits for surgeries/appointments and most won't see any improvement in the quality/availability of care.

That's the UK/Canada model and that's not counting the fact that we have 1000% more people than Canada.

Agreed. If anything, this fall would have allowed me to invest at a very low price and the existing stock would recover long before I retired. This was a huge opportunity missed for younger people, where were the only ones involved with the plan. I'm still making a ton investing on my own during the downturn, but it would have been nice to use my SS money as well.

I mean that there's nothing to stop employers from dropping coverage. There's nothing in the bill to protect the middle class when that happens.

Obama loves to say, "if you like your plan, you can keep it", which is kind of a lie, because most people can't control whether their employers keep their plan or not.

Obama said it, but it's a lie. There's nothing in the bill that prevents employers from dropping coverage. (though he later admitted that employers might do this, so it's not really a lie, only a misleading soundbite).

In fact, the "self-sufficiency" goal of the public option requires someone to pay premiums for it, which kind of requires the middle class to lose their employer benefits at some point.

The nightmare scenerio is the middle clas having to pay out of pocket for the public option, and still be subject to wait times.

FWIW

The anti reform gang is tripping all over themselves on the network no one is watching, CNBC. 12:30 the opponent to reform got tripped up after making his talking point by the tough question, "How is it rationing?" Not a grand day for the anti-reformers...at least on CNBC which doesnt mean much.

Molson, and MBBF, if you dont believe what's being said or proposed than what is the point of the debate. If you think theyre lying than you can argue that the sky is orange.

That's a good label, "anti-reform". There's not really many of those, though. That'd be a tricky way to label opposition to this particular plan though.

I work a lot with hiring and benefits for current employees. If there's a way we can drop coverage and give everyone a 5% raise, we would jump at it. We'd still net out around $10+K (after fines) for the average employee we did that to.

Do people really think that employers will not drop coverage once the "public option cover" is there? If you have 1000+ employees, you're talking about saving $10-20 million. In this economy, that's a gold mine.

I'm sure the eight people watching are enjoying it as much as you are :funkychickendance:

as far as SS privatization, with the amount of people claiming their SS benefits over the next few years we have sapped so much out of it that we've screwed those that already put in. With the impending insolvency we wouldve tightened from the bottom while getting tightened from the top. Thank god we didnt put the squeeze on by privatizing. I guess if I always looked at things through the me, me, me purview I might agree with you all. anyways, for another thread...didnt intend to hijack this one.

agreed, me and 7 others :banghead:

So, what you're basically saying is we shouldn't have spent a little more upfront to make a system solvent for the next 20-30 years.

If that's your stance on social security, how can you be for the current changes to health care? That's going to cost a lot more up front and there's nowhere near the solvency in the system 10-20 years down the road.

I dont understand your statement (too many variables and not even bills to debate) nevertheless I didnt want to hijack this thread so perhaps we can chat over beers.

For twenty bijillionith time, SS can be fixed with a pretty modest set of means testing and tax increases. Medicare, however, is unfixable without major changes in healthcare.

Hell, you can fix SS with raising the payout age and no tax increases.

SI

My point of view is that I think we need health care reform. We need mandatory insurance (like auto insurance) and lots of regulations against insurance companies, such as ending pre-existing condition exclusions, extreme premium variances, etc. However, I am very opposed to the government being a market participant (ie, the public option). I'd rather see the government be an insurance broker - represent the poor, unemployed, and uninsured and have insurance companies compete and offer plans, which the government would help the poor to afford.

I strongly think we need to control health care costs as well, but I think expanding coverage is a good first step.

I wonder what the polling would be like if you surveyed those under 40 and asked them about raising the retirement age to 70 (as opposed to asking older folks). Personally, I'd be all for it.

Sometimes I think so much could be done if we, like Australia, mandated voting. If the under 40 crowd voted as much as the over 60 crowd, a much better society would develop, I think.

I'd sign on in a heartbeat. What I'd lose by bumping back SS a few years would more than be made up for when they didn't tax the hell out of me to keep it at the current age.

This would almost certainly result in a Democratic stranglehold unless the GOP shifted leftwards quite a bit.

Woot, an opening for Libertarian Republicans! ;)

love this idea!

Without a public option I'm skeptical of a mandate. A mandate without enough regulation on insurance companies seems to be a recipe for disaster. Sure the insurance companies are for that idea, it's a free 50 million new customers.

One of the benefits of offering health insurance over a higher salary is the lower turnover rate for a business. When your employee and their family are tied into your health insurance plan, they are less likely to leave (especially considering most jobs require 3-6 months before they will cover you).

Also, the fine is 8% of wages from what I'm reading. If you give them a raise of 5% and then they tax you 8% on the new wages, I don't see where you are getting the massive savings from. Unless your employees are making very little, the cost benefits would not be worth it, especially when you factor in the higher turnover rate and lower quality employer pool you'd be working with by not offering health insurance.

Plus, if they drop coverage and only increase wages by 5% somebody at the top is pocketing a whole lot of money.

How about just lowering the payouts and offering more tax incentives on things like the Roth IRA and company 401Ks?

Well, granted, I am speaking of a good deal of regulation on insurance companies. I think eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions, wide premium variances, and other shady type behavior, as well as opening up insurance companies to interstate competition is very good start. The mandates would allow for a much better spreading of the risk as well.

Now, I guess, we could start off with strong regulations on insurance companies and the government acting as a broker for the poor and unemployed, having insurance companies compete over the pool, have more requirements that employers initiate health plans, and then add the mandate in later... but I think the mandate is essential at some point, and sooner rather than later, if we want to cut costs (also essential is removing the pay for service situation we have which just encourages doctors to perform unnecessary tests).

I agree, but I'm skeptical that Congress will put enough regulation on insurance companies.

I understand how the pre-existing thing screws a lot of people but I'm not sure how you get by without it. If there were no limitations on pre-existing conditions, shouldn't I just wait until I'm sick before I start paying for insurance?

Presumably, the federal option would be particularly generous to pre-existing conditions. So why would anyone pay for it until they need it? If the public option is intended to pay for itself through premiums paid by the middle class (rich people aren't going to use the public option), that seems like a big risk.

That's why there's a mandate for everyone to purchase insurance.

That wouldn't be an issue if insurance coverage was mandatory.

Oh right. But what if you're in the middle-class, have lots of student loans, and can't afford the public option? How much is this going to cost exactly? There's this assumption that it's going to be affordable. But how much? Or will it vary to whatever it takes to make this self-sufficient?

Without the price-checks of pre-existing conditions, companies, how does this stay affordable?

Do we have enough doctors and clinics in the U.S. for EVERYONE to have insurance?

Those are the two biggest risks of these things to me. Does the middle class know they're going to be shelling out, what, $500-$1000/month if they don't have benefits from their job, or if their job drops benefits?

Hence the need for mandates.

Regardless, I've seen too many people get screwed over by pre-existing condition exclusion to believe that a few people who would merely wait until they are sick (and even then, for an employer plan, you'd have to wait until the next open enrollment period, and for completely individual plans, I doubt it'd be all that cheap unless you were close to the poverty line or something)

I assume a tax subsidy would come into effect here. It'll likely be a sliding scale based on income, I'd imagine.

Yes, to some it will have the appearance of, basically, a tax increase on everyone (it should, not just on the rich). But for necessary things (and I believe affordable health care for everyone is necessary), taxes are accepted. They have been in every other developed country after all.

Wouldn't the market expand to accommodate that need?

I'm not talking about taxes, I'm talking about the premiums the middle class will have to pay for the public option. The middle class will get screwed because rich people aren't going to buy the public option, so the only way the public option can be "self sufficient" is the middle class paying for the health care of the poor with their premiums. Bringing up the poor at the expense of the middle class would be a huge problem.

I suppose, but doesn't that just mean lower standards for doctors and medical schools?

And if doctors don't like the new system, or if it doesn't agree with their wallets, we'll probably see a lot of early retirements.

Has to be something available. Pretty shitty country that doesn't give health insurance to people because they didn't win the genetic lottery.

Supply and demand. Give more incentives on student loans and stuff so doctors we can produce more doctors. Let more students in from abroad if we need to. It's pretty shitty to sit there and tell 15% of the country they are fucked because the other 85% demands more. We wouldn't do this with police protection.

Well, I'm saying it would have the appearance of a tax increase.

Second, not sure why you are speaking of the public plan as it appears it may be dead in the water.

Thirdly, the public option, if it comes to fruition, would be a government run self-insured program. Why would it be required to be self sufficient? It most likely won't be. Hence why the talk about raising more taxes on the rich to pay for health care (of course originally it was stated that the rich would pay for all of it, but I think even the administration has backed off that fallacy).

Other countries seem to do it and have just as high standards for doctors as we do (European doctors are pretty damned good). I don't see why it would lead to that much decline. A bunch of new med schools would start up and more people who wanted to be doctors would be accepted to them.

It's that not simple. You can't "tell" people to go into a profession. If you've noticed, we are facing a big problem with general physicians these days. Also, more doctors/surgeons are starting to a) opt out of government problems (Medicare/Medicaid) or b) retire early. Top it off with the ability to be sue at anytime.

It depends, if most companies in your industry (ie, manufacturing) are doing the same thing it's not really an issue.

Let's look at a 35-40K factory employee (vast majority of our employees). We estimate that benefits cost around 7-9K per insured employee at that level. Plus you have expenses for managing the benefits and insurance costs. If you have to pay a fine of 8%, that's less than 3K. Add in a 5% raise and the company still saves 4-5K per employee. Figure a couple thousand employees and that's $10 million (and still not counting the cost to manage).

Again, I don't think it would happen the second the public option came out. But, 2-3 years down the round, I'd be shocked if half the companies offering health insurance still did. Plus, at some point, a push will be made for the fees will go away as few will be offering insurance (which will mean even more savings).

The .pdf summary of the house plan claims that the public option would be self-sustaining:

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/1...ARY-071409.pdf

"The public option will operate on a level playing field. It will be subject to the same market reforms and consumer protections as other private plans in the Exchange and it will be self-sustaining – financed only by its premiums."

Do you actually believe that? I doubt they really believe that.

That would kind of shed light on the lack of credibility on the whole thing, wouldn't it?

The only way I can reason that it might be just misleading, rather than a lie, is that the rich will pay taxes for the poor to get the public option (the "affordability credits"), and that isn't included in the whole "self-sustaining" goal. I.e., the plan would be self-sufficient after the affordability credits are paid for by the rich.

It's a lot like car insurance. If you are a 40-year old man with no accidents, your premium is helping to offset the 22-year old who's total 2 cars in intersections the past 10 months.

This is why private insurance brokers look for similar age/health people when grouping plans. In a public option, many of the top 10-15% will opt out because they have white collar/good benefit jobs. Companies will start dropping coverage on the cheaper employees (where the 8% hit makes sense) and then you'll have a group of 30-60K salary employees without employer sponsored insurance being grouped in with people in poverty unable to pay their public premiums. So, guess who pays that bill? The 30-60K crowd who now is forced with paying taxes and a premium for a plan that's not as good as what they had last year.

The public plan will be great for people who make less than 25K and people who make between 80 and 200K won't care. It will suck for people who make 30-60K and now must go with inferior insurance for the same (if not more) price, as well as the 200,000+ "rich" who's taxes get hiked to help pay for it.

Seems to me a better plan is to setup incentives to get under 25K people covered under private plans (with some restrictions on dropping people as long as they pay their low premiums) than screw the 30-60K salary people who will now be faced with dropped employer coverage because the 8% penalty isn't enough to justify keeping them insured with the public option out there.

Did any of the European countries have to cover, what, 40 million new people overnight?

Maybe there would be a shortage, maybe there wouldn't, but I'd like to know what would happen if there was a shortage, not just assume everything will be fine.

Part of the failure of the MA universal health care attempt was a poor ability to predict the future, and especially the effects of a recession and greater-than-anticipated costs. I don't think the government can predict the future. This administration has already shown to have a poor handle on unemployment numbers, something a lot less complicated than this.

We've been told by others if you don't trust the bill you should just leave the discussion. I think the comparison was that we are saying "the sky is orange".

That seems awfully high per insured employee. Don't know what the going rates are for everyone, but 7-9k per insured employee is much higher than our rates with United Healthcare. Certainly there are employees who can hit that level, but on average with a diverse employment base, I don't see how it would be that high.

Benefits are also an extension of salary. If you remove $7-$9k in benefits from someone and replace it with $5k, you are in fact lowering the salary of the individual.

Do you think those people are not using medical services now? That when they have a medical emergency they just curl up into a ball and die?

These people aren't being added into the system, they are just being setup in a more consistent and convenient way.

Well you raise a good point in that a lot of these people are being taking care of on the state level. All states have some form of healthcare assistance to the poor, if not universal health care. (I'm always amazed to see how many criminals have access to free mental health care and drugs - and not as a result of their conviction, I mean before they committed their crimes. I know that's through the state, though there's surely some federal funding) Can we assume that all goes away too? Will the feds manage healthcare better than the states? How is that possible? Has the federal government ever done anything in a "more consistent and convenient way".

I wonder how well a "European health care" would work, one plan for the entire continent. Everyone's stuck with any flaws and risks, and the entire continent's economic future rests on the decisions of a few bureaucrats and the influence of lobbyists on them. Would Europeans have any concerns about that? I know it's not quite the same, but neither is comparing a small European country to a plan for the entire United States.

The fed a lot of things consistently and conveniently. Social security has worked well for decades. Medicare has cost issues but still works. FDA, FBI, NTSB, and many other organizations work well too. This notion that the federal government can't manage anything is a talking point with no substance.

If the poor get insurance none of us will ever get to see a doctor again. Keep your hands off my insurance you homeless bastards.

FUCK THE POOR!

The government would subsidize those unable to afford coverage, hence the @1 trillion cost over ten years. There isn't any way to have a plan that covers the poor without some form of government assistance.

The federal government isn't running healthcare. The grandest plan is a public option for insurance, but most everything would stay the way it is currently.

That's the part I don't quite understand. What's the $1 trillion going to if not to cover the poor? Clearly, the pdf and everything I've heard claims that the public option will be self-sufficient (i.e. subsidized by middle class premiums). I know there's much more to the plan then the public option, but $1 trillion worth?

You haven't won the argument with the posters, but you're doing a great job against the strawmen.

Until it become more cost effective for employers to drop coverage for their employees (esp middle to lower middle class ones). It's amazing to me that no one can connect the dots on this. Employers do NOT want to provide health care. They do it because they have to in order to keep people. once a public option becomes viable, they will drop coverage as soon as it's cost effective. It may not be year 1 or even year 2, but 3-5 years after this bill is passed, a significant number of employers (esp those that employ mostly middle class workers) will drop their coverage.

We'll put it in a different light. How many companies in the UK or Canada provide privately sponsored health care coverage? Employers don't want to be in that business.

It's a great chart to get the basics of how everything would work if you completely negate any risk factors.

The public option is a LOT smaller than I thought it was. Mostly it's just paying people to get private insurance. Does the fed predict that the public option will be that undesirable? What if, as many believe, and even Obama concedes is possible, a big chunk of that 122 million who get insurance through their employers need to suddenly get the public option?

Self-sufficient in that it won't be given money outside of premiums, but premiums of those under a certain income level would be subsidized by the government through a tax on those making more than 200k. Most of the 1 trillion cost will go to subsidizing premiums.

I'm not following this. The whole plan costs just $300 million? If that's the case, why does the democrat plan cost $600 bullion?

I think those are people, not dollars.

There are so many restrictions on who is eligible for the public option that I don't see your nightmare scenario being widespread. What happens to your company when you cut health insurance and your employees aren't eligible for a public plan? Are you really going to have a workforce happy with doubling their medical expenses while your company pockets the profits? And if your company is run by such bastards that will only get us to a single payer system faster, which IMO would probably be a good thing.

At the end of the day I don't think we should eliminate the possibility of reform because CEO's are going to be pricks or poor people will go to the doctor too much.

As for costs, I'm concerned about total costs, not where the money comes from. I think a public option can reduce the growth of medical expenses and I don't see much in the way of credible arguments for how that will happen otherwise.

So, is this plan insuring 10 million people that weren't insured before or the 25 million + the 7.2 mil + 2.5 mil?

Having a public plan that covers 10-25 million people isn't going to impact overall health care cost. The only argument I can see if you go single payer and set caps like Canada/UK. Then, you could see some cost savings (in addition to the numerous issues we've laid out in this thread).

Now, I don't think it's a terrible idea to have some sort of plan for covering people in poverty without insurance, but I'm not sure this public option is the way to go.

The proposal is a plan that would cover people in poverty without insurance which you want, but then you say it's not the way to go. How do you change your mind in the middle of a sentence?

Uh, what exactly do you think they had to do when they started their plans?


I guess there is a crux of the difference. MA, which is considering a new way of paying for service to cut costs, has almost a 100% of the population with health care coverage. I see this as a SUCCESS, not a failure. Are the costs higher? Yes, because no plan is perfect, but they are dealing with them.

I'll repeat what I wrote again:

Now, I don't think it's a terrible idea to have some sort of plan for covering people in poverty without insurance, but I'm not sure this public option is the way to go.

Why is this public option not the way to go?

Because I think there are ways the government can subsidize that kind of coverage via private industry without having to "own it". We're talking about 10-25 million people in a country of 300 million.

What's the difference outside of the fact that your way would just be handing over more money to health insurance companies?

IMO, going public for poverty only will probably involve some kind of government cost control (like Medicare) that makes the privately insured people pay more. You also have the issue with payment (like with Kid Care in IL) where the government takes so long to pay or is fickle on paying to where many doctors/clinics decide not to accept it.

I'd rather have the government setup guidelines for coverage (restriction on dropping, certain minimum coverage requirements) and let private companies take a stipend to provide the coverage. This way everyone is on an equal playing field for cost and you give people on this coverage a shot at actually having it be accepted by their doctor.

I think not having the government as a market participant is a good thing. When it's a broker for the poor rather than being an insurance company in its own right, it allows for better competition and less... let's say, incentive.. for increase government power in the system.

In listening to some Dem pundits, they almost see the public option as a stepping stone for a single payer health plan.

Exactly my thoughts. If all we want is to cover 10-25 million of the currently uninsured, we can do that at a much lower expense by outsourcing it. The only reason to go public is with the idea to have it eventually expand to a single payer system.

It's already like that. A private individual will pay a higher rate because insurance companies have negotiated much lower rates with hospitals. How would the government be acting any differently than the insurance companies currently do?