Should a Public Option be required to be profitable?

[Perky]

If a public option is at all viable politically, seems to me that if it operates competiviely with the insurance companies and be susidized by tax dollars it can not be so subsidized that it drives out the competition.


I am not saying a single payer solution is not a better option (jus that it does not seem politically viable), but I am saying to get major reform passed (short of single payer) and make it work for the long haul, the Private system of Health Insurance system is going to have to be maintained and offered as an alternative choice for users.

If this is utimately a battle to constrain cost, guarantee access and provide choice, the public-private solution is only going to work if premiums and copays in a public program find a balance between putting substantial downward pressure on price while not eviscerating the compettion.

Is the only way to make that happen, to incoroporate the public option and reuire it to be profitable?

[RoccoR5955]

1. No more money for these ganefs! n/t

No. As soon as profit is introduced, they will be motivated to deny claims. This is why a PUBLIC, NON-PROFIT system is the ONLY way that we can put some sort of end to these out of control costs!

[vaberella]

2. I voted yes. There should be some fees in relation to public option.

either through a certain co-pay or subsidized through our taxes. And this is a small fee like 50 dollars a year or something. Or those with higher incomes pay more.

That being said we have to look at the R&D.

For instance---single payer is not competing and it would have to have an R&D department. This is to say that we wipe out the insurance companies completely and only have the single payer method. So the R&D department besides administrative and care giver costs are going to cost. So the single payer will have to make money in some way or another to sustain itself. It's not functional any other way.

So when it comes to a public option in order to compete effectively and disarm the strength of the private insurance we'd have to meet the attributes of private insurance in some ways...ie create a major R&D department, have a strong and efficient administrative structure and medical facilities to meet the demands of the people.

The public option is large scale and in order to meet the stress in the short run it needs to make some sort of funding. This is not to forget the importance of generic medication and of course preventative care.

Personally for me a viable and important addition to the public option or even single payer is a fully paid gym membership through the government. In the end preventative care measures are also expensive in the short run but will be cheaper in the long run.

[Cant trust em]

3. I'm not sure if goal should be profit, or just lack of substantial red ink.

If the government broke even, then I would be happy. I don't think that propping up a non-competitive institution should be the long term goal.

[high density]

4. How is it going to be profitable?

We're going to be paying for it with taxes. If the program has a surplus then it should be reserved for future expenditures. If it is running a surplus year after year then it is time to either pay more out in benefits or reduce taxes. It shouldn't be profitable (that seems like waste to me) but it should be sustainable.

[JamesA1102]

5. Maybe they should run it like a not for profit. nt

[WonderGrunion]

6. I voted "Reject the Premise" but for different reasons.

There is no requirement that the post office is profitable, but properly administered, it is. I see no reason why a Public Health Care option can't be the same way.

[Perky]

8. Now I have to reject your premise: USPOS is not profitable.

It is actually quite blated and hevily subsidizes and I suspect the cost of a postage stamp is probable growing at a faster clip than Health care rates.

One of the biggest problem is they have a whole lot of infrastrucure that has to be paid for while the amount of mail has hanged dramatically as a reult of the internet and email.

[WonderGrunion]

10. Under Clinton it was profitable for several years

Republicans actually used that fact to try and justify its privatization. Properly run, many government agencies actually work. Republicans think government doesn't work because the way they do it, it doesn't.

[high density]

15. Price increases of first class mail are limited to inflation (CPI)

Health care has been increasing way above inflation for years now. As for the cost to the USPS of delivering a first class letter, I bet that is tied closely with diesel/gas/jet fuel which obviously has a mind of its own.

USPS' problem is a lack of volume because of the slumping economy. Mass mailers are no longer blasting out the tons of crap that they once did.

[endarkenment]

7. No health care providers should be 'for profit' including health insurance services.

The only exceptions are organizations that do R&D for medical devices and drugs, the enormous capital investments and risks justify for profit operations. Insurers, clinics, hospitals, labs, etc. should be required to be operated as non-profit organizations.

[rvablue]

9. Are police departments, fire departments, road works supposed to profitable?

With that said, I don't think a system purely paid through taxes is feasable.

I don't mind paying. But I'd like to pay for the services that I get and the professionals who render them. Not stock holders or senior management whose sole mission is to figure out HOW TO MAKE A PROFIT and earn a huge page check and get great benefits doing so!

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Just picture a "privatized" fire department.

You call 911 (charged 1.99/minute for the call) and stand outside, watching your house burn down as you wait for the fire trucks to show up. You hear the sirens and feel a bit of relief for a second..... until you realize they're driving the other direction, to the mansion on the other end of the street.

Unthinkable? Isn't that comparable to exactly what corporate health care does?

[rvablue]

12. Entirely unthinkable and that's why I posted what I did. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. Yeah, I was just expanding on your thoughts.

I'd also include energy in the list of things that should not be privatized. Public utilities vs ENRON, for example.

And look at what the Bush Crime Family did to the military. Bringing in mercenary thugs like Blackwater, while at the same time promoting Halliburton and their affiliate company KBR as the primary source of all equipment, supplies, and facilities for the troops.

[nyc 4 Biden]

14. I was thinking the same thing.

How are private companies supposed to compete with the government going non-profit? Not that I'm a fan of insurance companies at all.

[meow2u3]

16. ALL health care should be not-for-profit

The profit motive is what makes health care prohibitively expensive, amounting to corporate-rationed health care.

The greedy health insurance racketeers are the same people who incessantly bitch about the public option for health care. They don't like either nonprofit or government competition and are fighting tooth and nail to keep the health care system as it is: profits before people's lives.

[avaistheone1]

17. *In every other industrialized country it is Illegal for health insurance companies to profit off

of health care. The greedy health insurance companies are the problem in our system.


That is an important lession. People before profits.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Sustainable-yes. Profit bearing misses the point.

The idea is to find savings by removing the profit. Taxes or premiums to pay for the program and keep it at or above the red/black dividing line is obviously important.

[Aloha Spirit]

19. +1