CBO: Public option premiums higher than private plans

[Freddie Stubbs]

he public insurance option would typically charge higher premiums than private plans available in the exchange, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill.

That surprising conclusion raises doubts about Democratic promises that a government-run insurance plan would provide a lower-cost alternative to consumers. At the same time, it calls into question Republican charges that the plan amounts to government takeover of health insurance -- because only 6 million people would enroll in the plan, according to the CBO.

Here's the key passage from page 6:

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.

more: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/CBO_Public_option_premiums_higher_than_private_plans.html

[Oregone]

1. "Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the publi

Why? Why would people pick the more expensive public plan over cheaper alternatives in the exchange? Is this thing really designed to succeed?

[county worker]

4. Because they will be dumped by private insurance.

[Oregone]

8. Your sentiment sounds familiar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3906046#3906375

My thoughts before this dog and pony show took off

[mmonk]

6. I guess it depends on your perspective.

In our case, no.

[OHdem10]

2. If this report is accurate, what are the Democrats thinking????

You know, friends, this is looking more and more like a
stealth move to REFORM MEDICARE much more than an attempt
to provide affordable insurance to American Citizens.

For years we have heard we must do something about Medicare.
This bill affects Medicare much more than it provides good
Health Insurance.

I think most of you would agree, having Public Option Premiums
that cost more that Insurance Company plans makes no sense
at all and is a real loser.

[TheWraith]

3. Politico. Enough said.

If it's not total bullshit then it'll be twisted so far out of context that it might as well be a curly fry.

[sui generis]

5. one disturbing fact about the HCR

the only one :sarcasm:

is that the program doesn't mention any caps on premiums. Of COURSE we'll take you with stage 4 lung cancer, but your premium will be 120K per month.

Risk groups and public healthcare do not belong together. Risk groups are designed to optimize premium pricing for small groups while reducing risk exposure to the company, thereby ensuring higher profit margins by collecting premiums and not have to pay out.

If premiums are higher in the public option than in private insurance it's time to fire the program administrators.

[Cleita]

7. If the public plan is reliable in payments like Medicare is, I'll bet a lot

of people won't mind. Although, I don't know why you keep putting up articles from Politico. They are conservative in bias and often get their information wrong. Since the final bill hasn't even been crafted and signed into law, it's really premature of them to conclude this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. It doesn't make any difference. In fact it might be good.

The subsidies are set up such that every policy costs the subscriber essentially the same amount. So the perceived best value is the most expensive plan.

Of course, the private insurers realize this too.