The Non-Public Option

This editorial in the New York Times describes what is being considered for a “Non-Pulic Option.”

MEDICARE BUY-IN People ages 55 to 64 who are eligible to use the exchanges would be permitted to buy coverage from Medicare. Unlike older Americans, this younger group would have to pay the full premium themselves unless their incomes are low enough to qualify for subsidies. The premium could be in the neighborhood of $7,600 a year for single coverage.

REGULATED NONPROFIT INSURANCE For people below age 55 who are not enrolled in group coverage, the insurance industry would have to create an array of nonprofit insurance plans to compete with for-profit plans on the exchanges in every state. (If industry fails to do this, the government would create them.) The plans would be approved and supervised by the government’s Office of Personnel Management, which administers the health insurance plans offered to members of Congress and federal employees.

I would qualify for the Medicare buy-in, but the yearly cost of $7,600 amounts to about 5 times what it costs me to purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas from my employer.  How can anyone even pretend that these options would be competitive with private insurers?  It is a farce as far as I am concenred.



Filed under Healthcare

14 responses to “The Non-Public Option

  1. prairiepond

    Agreed about the farce, Iggy. I could hold on until I was eligible in a couple of years, but the premium is estimated to be nearly double what I pay now for private insurance.

    WTF? This is competition? This is choice?

    Uh no. This is screwing us, again, for the benefit of insurance companies. Dump their older customers off on the government and force the younger, more profitable customers to buy their expensive and crappy products.

    I expect this will also give the insurance companies license to raise their premiums to the level of the Medicare premiums and then tell us…”Well, you could always buy into Medicare if you dont like our products”.

    jesus wept

  2. lilacluvr

    Hasn’t it always been about money? Looks like the same old, same old is being pushed through that sausage maker they call Congress.

    I’m sure they will all pat themselves on the back and expect us to vote for them again. And, unfortunately, alot of them will be voted back in again and again and again.

  3. tosmarttobegop

    I was just addressing this on the BTSNBN, a mandate to force the young to buy into private insurance.
    And move a segment that is at the beginning of more claims against insurance.

    If this health care was a burglary, the Police would not only find big insurance’s finger prints at the scene.
    But the wallet they dropped!

    OKO took me to task and I answered though it ended up posting logic and reason to that blog is like have a discussion with the wall beside me. My posts are there but they are written in invisible ink.

    Anyway, this agreement is not true reform or answers unless you happen to be big insurance.

  4. lilacluvr

    Has any Republican politician denounced Beck’s desire to abolish Medicare?

    Another question would be – has any Republican defended Beck’s desire to abolish Medicare?

    Or are they waiting to see how those crying winds are going to blow first???

    As I see it , health insurance is going to be a problem for the next few decades – just a higher-costing problem than before the politicians ‘fixed it’.

  5. It is not just Republicans who are working for insurance companies. Joe Lieberman, any one?

  6. I forgot that Lieberman is an “independent” – there are guilty democrats, too.

    • Max Baucus is a huge recipient of healthcare money.

      This is no reform; guaranteed.

      It is another disgusting money grab. Now we are forced to buy another crappy product over which we have no control.

      France, even with it’s high unemployment, looks better every day. Par le vous anyone?

      • lilacluvr

        Maybe Max needs all that money to keep his newest girlfriend happy?

        It was recently reported that Baucus’s ‘girlfriend’ was recommended for some state AG position – and now there are questions regarding this situation.

        When I heard about this – my first thought was ‘just how hold is this dude and he has a girlfriend?’.

        The man looks to be 100 yrs old. If we knew the truth about our elected officials and the way they conduct their lives, I’m sure we would all be shocked.

  7. tosmarttobegop

    All a independent is an associate who does not want to be associated!

  8. lilacluvr

    Is it any wonder that lobbyists generally flow money to both parties? The only difference being – the party in power seems to get just a little bit more of that money.

    But both sides of Congress gets greased in some way.

  9. 6176 usually directs us to this blog. I’ve started reading it regularly and found this new entry on the health-care reform that will allow a few private health insurers to control health care.

    Nothing positive and much negative here.

  10. David B

    Republicans have no need to denounce a Beck. It’s like the political liberation movements that have a ‘non-affiliated’ armed militia that supports their goals. The political operatives can dismiss the actions of the militia as something they have no control over, even though they share goals.

  11. David B

    Now this is fun:

    ASHEVILLE — North Carolina’s constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.

    Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.

    “I’m not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he’s an atheist, he’s not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,” said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.

    Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

    • There are many who would love to see that law expanded to all states!

      Then we’d get to talk about whose God, and which of God’s laws and whose interpretations…

      Sadly many would see this as something good and never realize a theocracy is a theocracy even when based around a religion they consider superior to other religions.