Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
Nice try at a turnaround there. I agreed with part of and was referring to your previous post (the one I quoted) - It appears as though you want to have it both ways - Gov't run, but also greater competition. Having the Gov't running things will NOT lead to greater competition.  |
I dont see it as a turnaround, but hey, interpret it as you wish.
In fact, the FEHB program does promote competition, in that private insurers compete to be included among the 10+ private providers and 20+ plan options made available to employees. A government administered public option or public/private national exchange based on that model can do the same. IF you dont think it can work, why not? Please, more than just bloated bureaucracy.
But if you dont want to go that route, how would you encourage or stimulate greater competition among private insurance companies when it is clear from their record, they currently have little or no incentive to reduce administrative costs or premiums (profits, after administrative costs, are based in part on a percentage of premium...the higher the premium, the greater the profit)? Further, in many states, there is no incentive to even open the market up beyond a few large private insurance providers. How do you fix that?
Too many of the arguments against the public option intentionally confuse public option with single payer. There is no single payer proposal on the table.
I hear alot of criticism from opponents, but very few solutions.