One thing I have heard about when the trigger is pulled is, "affordable coverage" is not offered to 95% of people in a State.
Really? So who decides how much coverage is in these plans? What will stop the insurance companies from offering $300 per month for junk coverage. Or is it legislated that it is high quality coverage? I doubt it.
Here is the trigger that is acceptable. It can be done State by State or nationally, I don't care.
The insurance industry will:
- Be part of reducing overall healthcare costs by 40% within two years. (More in line with other nations)
- Get Administration costs to meet or be less than the average of a group of other industrialized countries. In other words take it from 30%+ down to 10 or 15%. (More in line with other nations) Many of these Insurance companies have economies of scale, more clients than Canada has people, what is their problem?
- Make the percentage of denied claims match that of Medicare. California insurance companies are offering denial rates between 27% and 40%. Medicare is well under 10%. (More in line with other nations)
- Offer coverage as comprehensive as any typically "good" insurance plan, (no junk).
Given the right set of standards there is no room to weasel out. Our side looks good for "reaching out". The proponents of a trigger will not agree to such standards because the insurers can't meet these numbers. But offering this trigger will show everyone that those in favor of a trigger only want to kill a public plan. Period. I would like to see Obama offer a trigger, this trigger. All of a sudden they are refusing a trigger and look pretty bad whining about being offered what they wanted. We would soon be back to talking about the PO as the only option.
And I will add, the next time some dope asks how it's going to be paid for, tell them "Oh, you must be in favor of Single Payer because if admin costs were streamlined to Canadian levels, enough administrative waste could be saved to provide compressive health insurance to all Americans." That is a fact.