The following is from the Bloomberg News website and relates an opinion released by the Congressional Budget Office regarding the public option in the House bill. Of special note (and concern) is the comment with respect to the fact that a public option will not manage claims as would private carriers. This same criticism was made about Medicare. Some people may view this as desirable but it is a major way to assure costs remain out of control.
———————————————-
A family of four with an annual income of $66,000 would be eligible for $10,500 in subsidies if they purchased insurance on health exchanges created under the bill, and would still pay $10,000 to cover premiums, deductibles and copayments, the CBO said.
On the public option, the budget office estimated in an Oct. 29 letter to congressional leaders that rates the program pays doctors and hospitals would “on average, probably be comparable to those paid by private insurers” that sell on the exchange.
Won’t Curb Benefits
The public option wouldn’t curb benefit payouts as much as private insurers by managing how people use health care, the CBO said. It would also incur higher costs because it would draw a “a less healthy pool of enrollees.”
“Attracting sicker people” and doing less “utilization management than private plans” would “put the public plan in a weak competitive position,” said Ginsburg.
———————————————-
In other words by playing fairly the government has trouble competing. How can that be? Because it trys to promise what can’t be delivered. You can’t give everyone everything they want and still maintain affordable health care. There are good reasons why insurance companies and employer plans operate the way they do. Those reasons are to make the plans viable both for the organization assuming the bulk of the risk and for the participants paying premiums and payroll deductions. The government should be no different.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 