CBO: Public option premiums higher than private plans

[Henry Alden]

makes no sense to do it..

Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)




http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/CBO_Public_option_premiums_higher_than_private_pla ns.html

[FreeAndClear]

intersting hard to read because of the underline but interesting. That being said. CBO also made estimates that as many as 90 million people would go on the plan. I guess that changed. It it also interesting to note that this is actually a good thing because if the overall costs go down and the public plan costs more doesn't this prevent the very thing that conservatives have been screaming about: the elimination pof private insurance companies.

[troy]

makes no sense to do it..

Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)




http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/CBO_Public_option_premiums_higher_than_private_pla ns.html

You know, I was always suspicious of the timing of when a public option would kick in, which was after 2012. Now democrats are talking about a more immediate time frame for the public option to kick in, which I've heard is as early as 2010. It's reported that they believe this will help them in the 2010 mid-terms, however I don't get their strategy politically, because they're going to own the obvious failure this will be and ruin any chances for Obama being reelected in 2012. Proof how stupid they are. This whole process is to the point of being comical, if it weren't so serious.

If this does get rammed down our throats, I hope it does kick in before 2012.

[E7ALR]

Except we know that they will run it at a loss, subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

[FreeAndClear]

You know, I was always suspicious of the timing of when a public option would kick in, which was after 2012. Now democrats are talking about a more immediate time frame for the public option to kick in, which I've heard is as early as 2010. It's reported that they believe this will help them in the 2010 mid-terms, however I don't get their strategy politically, because they're going to own the obvious failure this will be and ruin any chances for Obama being reelected in 2012. Proof how stupid they are. This whole process is to the point of being comical, if it weren't so serious.

If this does get rammed down our throats, I hope it does kick in before 2012.


No chance! Political suicide is fun but not that much fun

[troy]

No chance! Political suicide is fun but not that much fun

Please explain...I think I get it?

[E7ALR]

No chance! Political suicide is fun but not that much funYou didn't read section one of the house bill, Immediate Reforms, where HHS is required to establish a governemt run national risk pool which would be morph into the public option when the exchange comes on line later.

[The Duke]

Except we know that they will run it at a loss, subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

Bingo, hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars.

[FreeAndClear]

Please explain...I think I get it?


There are a lot of people out there who beleive that Dems recognize that they will lose the midterms. They know what is it stake so they took their biggest issue and ran with it no matter the cost. if they get this through then all of a sudden they are the dems who look smart and powerful ( I am not saying they are but it is a good move). But they cannot let it go into effect before the midterms. Nope never ever ever.

[nebcon]

You know, I was always suspicious of the timing of when a public option would kick in, which was after 2012. Now democrats are talking about a more immediate time frame for the public option to kick in, which I've heard is as early as 2010. It's reported that they believe this will help them in the 2010 mid-terms, however I don't get their strategy politically, because they're going to own the obvious failure this will be and ruin any chances for Obama being reelected in 2012. Proof how stupid they are. This whole process is to the point of being comical, if it weren't so serious.

If this does get rammed down our throats, I hope it does kick in before 2012.

I'm really not impressed with the whole "Chicago machine" business. They really aren't very good at this. Their sense of timing and PR is really pretty bad.

[troy]

There are a lot of people out there who beleive that Dems recognize that they will lose the midterms. They know what is it stake so they took their biggest issue and ran with it no matter the cost. if they get this through then all of a sudden they are the dems who look smart and powerful ( I am not saying they are but it is a good move). But they cannot let it go into effect before the midterms. Nope never ever ever.

That's what I thought you meant. Wonder why it's being reported? Never mind, probably more misinformation to confuse and misdirect.

[Trip]

intersting hard to read because of the underline but interesting. That being said. CBO also made estimates that as many as 90 million people would go on the plan. I guess that changed. It it also interesting to note that this is actually a good thing because if the overall costs go down and the public plan costs more doesn't this prevent the very thing that conservatives have been screaming about: the elimination pof private insurance companies.

What this overlooks is the exemptions granted the public plan at the onset, because of startup considerations.

The bottom line is there is really nothing you can rely on in any of this. It's all subject to change and refining, and none of that will be beneficial to the consumer or overall costs, but certainly benefiting the enormous growth of government.

[dad49er]

makes no sense to do it..

Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)




http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/CBO_Public_option_premiums_higher_than_private_pla ns.html

Less than 10% of the people will even qualify for the public option.
And even many of those would have to pay up to 20% of their income in premiums.

Sounds like the private insurance companies have nothing to worry about.

[Henry Alden]

Less than 10% of the people will even qualify for the public option.
And even many of those would have to pay up to 20% of their income in premiums.

Sounds like the private insurance companies have nothing to worry about.

Who cares what private insurance companies care about?? They suck almost as much as the federal government. They are the lesser of two evils.

[kaydahl]

I'm really not impressed with the whole "Chicago machine" business. They really aren't very good at this. Their sense of timing and PR is really pretty bad.

You haven't experienced the full "machine" yet. When PR fails, bulldozers are summoned in the middle of the night.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-157x.html

[zantax]

I am open to taking sig line bets that more then six million will be in the public plan by whatever date the CBO is claiming. And let's all have a hearty laugh at big pharma while we're at it, for being stupid enough to believe they could negotiate in good faith with Obama and have him stick to his end of the deal. Because despite his promise that the government wouldn't negotiate drug prices, this bill says they will..

[Mojotiger]

Less than 10% of the people will even qualify for the public option.
And even many of those would have to pay up to 20% of their income in premiums.

Sounds like the private insurance companies have nothing to worry about.

Yeah, but we do. What do you think is going to happen to premiums when private insurers are forced to accept pre-existing conditions at the same rates as healthy people? Nevermind having to continue to pick up the tab for Medicare and Medicaid, and now gov't insurance.

[dad49er]

Yeah, but we do. What do you think is going to happen to premiums when private insurers are forced to accept pre-existing conditions at the same rates as healthy people? Nevermind having to continue to pick up the tab for Medicare and Medicaid, and now gov't insurance.

Then why all the boo hoo hoo :(( over the poor private insurance companies?
Opponents argue that reform would drive them out of business.
They are a big part of the problem anyway.
Insuring everyone (or nearly everyone) will lower rates.