Skip to main content

View Diary: Post exposes an inconvenient truth - insurers will still cherry pick (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Like Coates said: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    selise, vigilant meerkat, Hens Teeth

    HR 3200 will not be like Medicare -- this is a Warsaw Ghetto public option, offering outlandish rates to the uninsurable in a plan designed by the insurance companies.

    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." -- Gramsci

    by Cassiodorus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  "A Warsaw Ghetto public option"? (0+ / 0-)

      The kindest word I can think of for that claim is "hyperbolic."

    •  Coates didn't say that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rachel Q

      He posted a piece by some lawyer named Sullivan who said that.

      Sullivan's analysis is flawed because he doesn't understand how Medicare functions now. What he sees as flaws in the PO are already reflected in the variations in reimbursement rates under Medicare.

      And believe me the insurance companies would not have written anything remotely looking like HR3200. If implemented as written it guts their current business model and severely limits its profits. Which is why the Senate Finance Committee dragged out their process and tried to get guarantees that their bill would be the fundamental basis for any bill that emerges. They know that the combined provisions of Secs 111-116 and particularly 113 and 116 takes all the predatory gaming they do and puts it out of bounds.

      HR3200 is an excellent bill. Something difficult to grasp if you haven't read through at least the first 175 pages dealing with the Exchange, the Acceptable Benefits Package, and what qualifies a private insurer to offer a Qualified Health Benefits Plan. Sullivan focuses too deeply on the Administration of the PO and takes his eye off of what it delivers. Which is maybe a product of him being a JD and not like Coates an MD.

      •  I see.., (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        selise

        Perhaps, then, you could educate us as to how you arrived at your particular perspective.

        You say about Sullivan that:

        What he sees as flaws in the PO are already reflected in the variations in reimbursement rates under Medicare.

        Sullivan, however, argues that:

        Medicare is larger than any private insurance company; the "option" in both bills will be small. The traditional Medicare program is a single program with uniform benefits; the "option" in both bills will be a balkanized program that may not be available in all parts of the country. Medicare is administered by public employees; the "options" in both bills will be administered by private-sector corporations, some or all of which will be insurance companies. The "option" in neither bill resembles Medicare.

        So how are all of these "flaws" that Sullivan sees in the "public option" offered under HR 3200 reflected in variations in reimbursement rates under Medicare?

        We'll start with this one: there are more.

        "The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." -- Gramsci

        by Cassiodorus on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:26:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  some lawyer? (0+ / 0-)

        google is your friend.

        http://www.amazon.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site