6 Answers

• Reputation: 28 Q&A: 0 0 0 30 2 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  30 2 It would be a health insurance plan, administered by a agency in government, that you would buy into, and the cost would be modified based on your ability to pay. The idea is to have a non-profit health care plan that the private insurance companies would have to compete with (at this point they have no real competition, because you don't see how much you pay for it directly in that it's just subtracted from your paycheck people aren't inclined to shop around, and most can't). Competition will cause them to become more efficient, lower premiums, and maybe, just maybe be less of gigantic of assholes to everyone. It's a safety net and cost controller in one, I'm a huge fan, and I think the plan could be administered in a streamlined way because it'll be built essentially from scratch. If I'm wrong about something, sorry, I tried to be general and I'm not an expert, just a policy nerd. Philler answered in News & Politics over 2 years ago | Report 3 comments by Rotten666, Kristin Bell, and freikja… 0 0 Well, shit. That sounds completely reasonable to me. Thanks! Rotten666 commented over 2 years ago | Report 0 0 I keep hearing snippets in the news about something related to people over 65 getting hosed on this...do you know what that is all about??? Kristin Bell commented over 2 years ago | Report 0 0 "Competition will cause them to...maybe, just maybe be less of gigantic of assholes to everyone." For the love of all that's holy, l hope so. Great answer. freikja commented over 2 years ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 9 Q&A: 0 0 0 18 9 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  9 2 As far as I understand it, it would basically be health insurance you buy from the government. Pretty much like medicare, but instead of paying in advance through withholding, you would pay just like you pay for insurance now. The government would offer a certain level of coverage and if you went to the doctor the government would pay them on your behalf. It would probably have a sliding scale for fees so the poor could afford it. The idea would be to offer a competing plan that would ideally result in lower prices from private insurance as well. It would also hopefully force them to increase coverage in order to compete. The other advantage is that no one would be 'forced' into a government run plan as private insurance would still exist. You really like Blue Cross, you can stay with them, but if you think grannys got it good you can join her on a government plan. Giffy answered in News & Politics over 2 years ago | Report 2 comments by Ed and Giffy… 0 0 Alan Miller, CEO of Universal Health Services, says that a small employer who pays health insurance pays about $12,000 for a family of 4 for health insurance. He said if the government comes in at $5,000 for insurance the employers will switch to the gov insurance in mass. This leaves the insurance companies out of the picture and in the long run the insurance companies won't be able to compete. This over time leaves the government as the only one left standing. Then we have a single payer system with no competition. The government then runs the whole shabang. Will it be run efficiently and how will they ultimately pay for the whole thing. Increase taxes on the rich, on all of us, cut services, ration or what. Who knows? Do you trust the government to run this thing? Ed Ed commented over 2 years ago | Report 0 0 Do you trust the government to run this thing? Yes. A hell of a lot more than I trust the insurance companies who have so far fucked up the system royally. Giffy commented over 2 years ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 3 Q&A: 0 0 0 9 6 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  7 1 It is one of those issues that makes much more sense if you look at the economics of it... Insurers save money by not providing care. A single payer option would solve some of the problems, but what that option does not address is the problem of competitive advantage... So, aside from better care for all, regardless of age or health status, the main advantage is that if insurers are forced to compete for customers based on rates available from the government (negotiated in bulk on behalf of citizens who opt in for the public option) They would be forced to cut into the huge profit margins and start using their resources for treating patients rather than boosting profits for the next quarterly stock report. This is how we save money in the long term... Morgan Dutton answered in News & Politics over 2 years ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 5 Q&A: 0 0 0 7 2 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  7 2 A huge non-profit health insurance company. That's the simplest way to phrase it. Zack Frazier answered in News & Politics over 2 years ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 4 Q&A: 0 0 0 6 2 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  6 2 The public option or a well known forms of it already exist. It's called Medicare or the Veterans Administration. Both systems deliver health care more efficiently and for less then the private insurance sector. Republicans rail against "government run health care" but fail to say that medicare and the VA are in fact successful government run options. In the final analysis the public option would probably mimic either medicare for all or the VA systems. The fact is that medicare and the VA have controled cost far better than private insurance companies. Mainly because there is no profit motive and because they have used methods, like electronic medical records, that save lots of money and prevent dupiication of services when they are not needed.     Ricky Cresciend'o answered in News & Politics over 2 years ago | Report 2 comments by Lee and freikja… 0 0 Bill Kristol had an interesting run in with Jon Stewart on exactly that issue. Kristol said that "soldiers deserve better health care because of what they've sacrificed for their country." Stewart tried to press him on his admission that the government does a better job running a health care system than private industry, but Kristol remained obstinately unaffected by the cognitive dissonance. Really shows you just how nutty the pro-industry folks are. Well, not "nutty" so much as "bankrolled by the industry." It's sad. Lee commented over 2 years ago | Report 0 0 Of course, while effective and certainly a life-saver, Medicare is only available to those who qualify, and there are still quite a few who badly need help, but slip through the cracks. Myself included. Which is why we need this healthcare as badly as we do; once we have more money going into the entire system, we also have the means to cover everyone, not just those who fit a flawed qualification system limited only by its funding. freikja commented over 2 years ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 270 Q&A: 4 0 2 208 58 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  4 6 It's Medicare, except without the age limit. It's a good thing because it is non-profit and will allow everybody to have access to health care. It's a bad thing because rich people do not want to pay for poor people to go to the doctor. Violet DaGrinder answered in News & Politics over 2 years ago | Report 4 comments by threnody, Steven Gomez, and threnody… 0 0 Can someone explain how it is going to be paid for in terms an idiot like myself can understand? I understand "taxes" since it's the government and all...but taxes on who and how? Just the Paris Hiltons? threnody commented over 2 years ago | Report 0 0 Yeah, we've gotten everything on this topic except a full cost breakdown and a funding source. And while people obviously support a public plan (hey, if you can make it work I'll be on board too), no one seems to have any real idea what it'll ultimately cost and how we're going to pay for it. Steven Gomez commented over 2 years ago | Report 0 0 Wait, I wasn't saying that, SG. I'm not trying to say there isn't a plan for funding...I honestly want to know what it is! I am FOR a public plan. I lived in Massachusetts and had "free care" for years. It was great. threnody commented over 2 years ago | Report 0 0 On Medicare, you pay for your government insurance out of your social security check plus, you have to have additional insurance to cover what medicare doesn't pay for. How is this going to work? Linda commented about 1 year ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend: