Senate FinCom Approves a Bad 'Public Health Option' for States.

The U.S. Senate Finance Committee approved adding a State-Based Public
Option to HealthCare/HeathInsurance reform bill today. It's to be modeled
after the "Basic Health" program that's now in Washington State.


STORY: thehill.com...

I went to the website for Washington State's Basic Health program and found
that it ran out of money to enroll new people in May 2009 with less than
110,000 participants state wide.

Website: www.basichealth.hca.wa.gov...

Why would the Federal Government want states to duplicate a program that
is going down the tubes in the state of Washington? I don't get it.

-cwm

[edit on 1-10-2009 by carewemust]

Wish we could delete messages like this where we make an idiot of our-
selves. I figured out how to edit the title after posting the words below.
Please disregard this entire message. argh.


Hmm.. my title was truncated somehow. It should say,
Senate FinCom Approves a bad "Public Health Option" for States.

Perhaps the QUOTE symbols shouldn't be used in Titles here at ATS.
Oh well, we live and learn!

[edit on 1-10-2009 by carewemust]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by carewemust]

I've always said I would fully support a statewide option. I think the problems with the funding is that it is under utilized by residents and so they wind up covering only low income people who usually have pre-existing conditions.

I really wish I can remember what state it was but I was just listening to NPR the about two weeks ago and they had the same problem. They were going broke. The had at least one guy who had 1 million dollar a year condition (blood disease or something) and everyone else that they were covering were sick before they even got coverage.

I'll try to find more info on it but the program made a complete 180 by making certain changes (what they were I can't remember for the life of me) and more and more people started getting the state insurance instead. People making more money (and could therefore pay a larger portion of their premium) and who were healthier. The insurance companies in the state were getting peeved because their prices were so low that they complained that their prices were "unfair" and they weren't able to compete with them (waa, waa, waa, cry me a river).

Anyway, I personally think that a state by state option is much more viable.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by nunya13]

reply to post by nunya13



Do lower income people have a greater number of health problems than
those who are above a certain income level? Hmmm.. would be nice
to see some statistics in that regard. Maybe that's why states hate
Medicaid so much.

reply to post by carewemust


I am convinced that the democrats must have a public option because they want to get their hands on and control that 20% of money floating around in the economy.

They never mention the need to bring down the actual costs of healthcare like doctor and hospital fees. It is always about those EVIL insurance companies that make less than 10% profit a year.

reply to post by PeaceLoveUnderstanding



PeaceLoveUnderstanding, it's not just the money going to insurers that
they want to get their hands on. People signing up for the Public Health
Insurance Option will also have to give their bank account information
to the Federal Government for deducting the monthly premium. The IRS
would LOVE this. They'd be able to pull money out of your account to
get back taxes. I could even see state and local governments utilizing
the Federal Government conduit into your bank account for withdrawing
funds that are owed for speeding/parking tickets and any other violations.
Signing up for the Public Option could end up hurting many unsuspecting
citizens who didn't read the fine print of their agreement with the Federal
Government.

Originally posted by carewemust
reply to post by PeaceLoveUnderstanding

 

Insurance Option will also have to give their bank account information to the Federal Government for deducting the monthly premium. The IRS would LOVE this. They'd be able to pull money out of your account to get back taxes. I could even see state and local governments utilizing the Federal Government conduit into your bank account for withdrawing funds that are owed for speeding/parking tickets and any other violations...

Or, how about the Feds using bank account information to review spending habits and using it to determine if we lead a healthy enough lifestyler to warrant certain treatment? Or, be denied treatment, based on historical purchases, like cigarettes. Or, perhaps not cover the kidneys of someone who's alcohol purchases have been above national average.

The trouble with state-run public options is that there would be extreme variations from state to state. The richer states would be able to provide more and better coverage.

In my state, for example, only children and the disabled are eligible for medicaid. No other adult can receive it no matter how low their income is. And it looks like the state may be running out of money even for that. In other states this is not the case.

IMO Social Security and Medicare work fine on the federal level. A national public option would be the most efficient and cost-effective way to go.

I'm glad to see the Senate Finance Committee even considering a public option, but giving it to the states is just ideologically popular. It's not really in the best interests of the country as a whole.

reply to post by Sestias


This is an excellent point.

Plus, we would possibly have mass movements of peoples to states with more "liberal" healthcare, kind of like what happens now with states like California that encourage the homeless and illegals to settle there. If that happened, it could quickly bankrupt that state's healthcare because many of these new people would be net users of tax many instead of net payers of taxes.



[edit on 10/2/2009 by centurion1211]