Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: The public option.

  1. #1

    The public option.

    Some of you may or may not be surprised by this, But I was a supporter of the public option, back when it was still a part of the health insurance bill.

    2 facts about the public option as it was written

    1. It's optional to be enrolled
    2. It's optional to pay for it.

    So, In general, to receive public option benefits, you would have to pay a premium, just like any other insurance policy.

    My question is:

    Did you, or would you support the public option, and why or why not.
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Liberal troll.
    *******

    Anti-vaxxers, responsible for a 30 percent uptick in totally preventable diseases in the world, have blood on their hands. They shouldn't be considered civilized members of society. If they refuse to listen to a century of scientific studies confirming time and time again that vaccination is an unquestionable good for humanity, then it's time for us to start treating anti-vaxxers as what they are: dangerous and worthy of shame and condemnation. If we can't convince anti-vaxxers to change their minds, we must attach enough social stigma to the delusion that agnostics cease to join them.

  4. #3
    No way... Absolutely not!

    First of all, you refer to "optional". Since when do government programs ever remain "optional"?

    Even if this was totally funded by premiums and didn't rely on taxpayer funding (which we know would never happen), the government would then craft health care regulations to benefit the "public option" while punishing insurance companies that didn't play their game. Eventually, employers would realize that it would be incredibly stupid to keep funding legacy insurance companies since their employees could get ever increasing benefits from the "public option" without having to pay for them.

    The "option" becomes less and less optional. This was the lead-in to a single payer system.

    You already have "optional" insurance. You don't need the "public" to fund it. Well... you used to have an option.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  5. #4
    based on some of your recent posts....nah...it doesn't surprise me.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    No way... Absolutely not!

    First of all, you refer to "optional". Since when do government programs ever remain "optional"?
    What government programs do you know of that have ween from being optional to being not optional?

    Even if this was totally funded by premiums and didn't rely on taxpayer funding (which we know would never happen),
    How do you know that

    the government would then craft health care regulations to benefit the "public option" while punishing insurance companies that didn't play their game.
    And yet, companies competing with the USPS such as UPS and Fed-Ex still exist.

    Eventually, employers would realize that it would be incredibly stupid to keep funding legacy insurance companies since their employees could get ever increasing benefits from the "public option"
    I'm surprised that you can come out so strong against public health insurance, and still feel as though your employer is obligated to provide insurance.


    without having to pay for them.
    The public option would not have been free, you would have had to pay premiums.
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.

  7. #6
    Oh no... Did I feed the troll?

    I don't support employer-provided insurance. I don't know where you got that from? If an employer wants to put some of the employee's pay into insurance for them, I have no problem, but they shouldn't get any special favors from the government for doing so.

    It's funny to me that almost everyone whom I have met that is advocating a public option, really wants a single-payer system. I suspect you are no different. If that's what you really want, you should have just posted a thread about single-payer. If that's not what you want and you think the public option is just such a great idea, then you are incredibly naive.

    Last morsels for this troll.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  8. #7
    1. It's unconstitutional (not found in enumerated powers)
    2. It will not be optional because it will operate at a loss that will be covered by taxpayers. I know it will operate at a loss because if it was profitable, it would already exist in the private sector. If it already exists in the private sector, government doesn't need to create another.
    3. Government subsidy and regulation of health care is what ruined it. the solution is LESS government, not more. Government ruins everything it touches. The more it touches the faster it ruins.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  9. #8
    "Public option." So several years after this was all introduced. Do I still have an "option" will the new law?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    based on some of your recent posts....nah...it doesn't surprise me.

    Yep. The preface to his post is quite funny.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  12. #10

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I am View Post
    Some of you may or may not be surprised by this, But I was a supporter of the public option, back when it was still a part of the health insurance bill.

    2 facts about the public option as it was written

    1. It's optional to be enrolled
    2. It's optional to pay for it.

    So, In general, to receive public option benefits, you would have to pay a premium, just like any other insurance policy.

    My question is:

    Did you, or would you support the public option, and why or why not.
    No, because what is optional Monday morning becomes a requirement by early afternoon the same day.

    Trust in governmental programs is a sure sign of brain-phag* or individual/group corruption.






    *This is one reason why I greatly dislike these so-called "profanity" filters. My perfectly valid use of "f a g" gets nuked by vBulletin. FAIL, IMNSHO.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "It’s just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill people’s fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post

    2.

    It will not be optional because it will operate at a loss that will be covered by taxpayers.
    I know it will operate at a loss because if it was profitable, it would already exist in the private sector.
    If it already exists in the private sector, government doesn't need to create another.
    ^^this nails it

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I am View Post
    How do you know that

    Because we have about 8,000 years of written human history attesting to the universality of it.

    Try to keep up.

    And yet, companies competing with the USPS such as UPS and Fed-Ex still exist.
    Mr. Apples, meet Mr. Oranges.

    I'm surprised that you can come out so strong against public health insurance, and still feel as though your employer is obligated to provide insurance.
    Where was that so much as even vaguely hinted, much less implied, much much less stated explicitly?


    The public option would not have been free, you would have had to pay premiums.
    You must be very much a newbie at this because you show apparent ignorance of the most basic facts.

    It has been shown through the historical record that governments are nearly universally incapable of managing the basics of their raisons d'être with anything that would be remotely confused with competence and integrity, much less anything outside of their ostensible charters.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "It’s just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill people’s fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post

    You must be very much a newbie at this because you show apparent ignorance of the most basic facts.
    05-17-2012, 09:59 AM
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    05-17-2012, 09:59 AM

    I was trying to be generous.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "It’s just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill people’s fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  18. #16
    The issue with medicine is cost inflation due to artificial scarcity imposed by the state through various regulatory capture schemes

    patents, licenses, prescriptions, mandates, regulations

    remove these restrictions to free markets and prices will plummet for the average consumer

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    The issue with medicine is cost inflation due to artificial scarcity imposed by the state through various regulatory capture schemes

    patents, licenses, prescriptions, mandates, regulations

    remove these restrictions to free markets and prices will plummet for the average consumer
    That's like saying the price of food is expensive because of health regulations, transport, etc. Even if you removed all government mandates, many of those costs would still exist.

    For healthcare, patents drive the innovation in the industry. For example, the pharma industry has spent 83 billion over 25 years looking for a drug for Alzheimer's disease. 99.7% of the drugs they have sent to trials have failed. Why do they keep rolling the dice? The company that does so knows that due to patent protection, and then demand for the product, they will be able to make a perhaps 100 billion on the drug. If you take out patents, the company knows that the moment they discover the drug and validate it (spending ~2 billion in the process), other companies will rush in to manufacture the drug; the drug will end up going for the cost of manufacturing + tiny premium. The company that originally discovered it is out the cost of research.

    Healthcare is expensive primarily because healthcare is expensive. We are living longer and longer, and the socialization of medicine through the private insurance system means that costs are (generally) felt by the society as a whole, and not on an individual basis. This allows costs to inflate. Put another way, without a health insurance system, many expensive medical procedures and treatments would only be affordable for the very rich, and hence, likely wouldn't have been developed in the first place. The same is doubly true with Medicare.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    That's like saying
    You have never read anything by Mises or Hayek?

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    You have never read anything by Mises or Hayek?
    or have you seen any medical bills? They usually get paid by the insurance so most people are not looking into them.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    That's like saying the price of food is expensive because of health regulations, transport, etc. Even if you removed all government mandates, many of those costs would still exist.
    Some of them would, indeed.

    But tell us, what is the single highest cost in bringing a drug to market? Do you know?
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "It’s just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill people’s fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Some of them would, indeed.

    But tell us, what is the single highest cost in bringing a drug to market? Do you know?
    Clinical trials. I know that the rebuttal to this is that the FDA makes those trials so expensive, but it isn't like the private market would just let companies sell snake-oil, especially if you allow the legal system to sue companies that make false advertisements. In fact, sometimes it is the case where the FDA will approve a drug that won't be well prescribed because physicians don't see a good benefit-to-downside ratio.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    Clinical trials. I know that the rebuttal to this is that the FDA makes those trials so expensive, but it isn't like the private market would just let companies sell snake-oil, especially if you allow the legal system to sue companies that make false advertisements. In fact, sometimes it is the case where the FDA will approve a drug that won't be well prescribed because physicians don't see a good benefit-to-downside ratio.

    As of 10 years ago, the average cost to bring a drug to market was over $9B. Thank you FDA, mostly.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "It’s just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill people’s fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    As of 10 years ago, the average cost to bring a drug to market was over $9B. Thank you FDA, mostly.
    Now wait a minute. That cost includes the cost of drugs that failed. Companies will spend about half a billion developing drugs that are aborted on in the process. They will spend twice that on drugs that are good in models but impotent in animals. They will spend twice again in further models, and the majority of drugs will fail in safety and toxicity testing. Then, they will spend 2 or 3 billion on a clinical trial in humans, and the drug could still flop completely at that point. All while doing this, there could be a sudden toxicity issue that springs out of nowhere. A competitor could come to the market rendering the original product useless. Or, because they have a niche product, they could have problems filling the clinical trials. Then, of course, the FDA can put a kibosh on the whole deal, or ask for Phase 4 trials.

    Now, they still have to make the drug, sell the drug, advertise it, etc. That involves safety staff, investing in a manufacturing facility, sales, and all the background stuff that goes with that (legal and HR). On top of that, companies have to finance the endeavour with debt.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    Now wait a minute. That cost includes the cost of drugs that failed.
    That may be the case, but I don't think so because the success/fail ratio is pretty low. IIRC, that it the average cost for successful drugs, and that was from the mouth of the CEO of Astra-Zeneca before my MBA class.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "It’s just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill people’s fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.




  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    That may be the case, but I don't think so because the success/fail ratio is pretty low. IIRC, that it the average cost for successful drugs, and that was from the mouth of the CEO of Astra-Zeneca before my MBA class.
    Well, some of these numbers won't correlate. For example, while "successful" drug is generally pegged at "drugs to market", "failed" drugs has a broad definition. Does it include drugs that fail at phase 3? 2? 1? Does it include pre-clinical drugs? In the preclinical stages, there are compounds/molecules, that companies would pay a couple ten thousand for, that fail. There may be hundreds of those in the pursuit of a compound that reaches the clinic. Considering the source of your data...well, he'd be motivated to justify high prices, justifying high costs.

    Keep in mind that 85% of drugs are approved by the FDA once submitted to the FDA. About 60% of drugs that pass phase 3 (presuming that unless the results were good, they wouldn't be submitted to FDA). Only 10% of drugs to reach Phase 1 get to approval.

    Even this study: http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_...014_cost_study, basically sponsored by the pharma companies, estimates that a successful drug costs 2.6 billion to bring to market, and that includes 1.2 billion in time costs.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    As of 10 years ago, the average cost to bring a drug to market was over $9B. Thank you FDA, mostly.
    Yep.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  31. #27
    By hook or by crook--they will fund others' healthcare with your tax dollars. The poor insurance commissioner's hands are tied. Well, boo hoo; I guess I can't take care of myself without government help.





    Iowa Democrats Unveil Iowa Public Option Healthcare Plan
    On June 23, 2017 By rick-smith


    This week State Senator Matt McCoy, Representative John Forbes and former Senator Jack Hatch presented a “Public Option” to replace Iowa’s Obamacare Exchange. Earlier this year, the three major insurance carriers that sell coverage on the Iowa Exchange – Wellmark, Medica and Aetna – announced they wouldn’t participate in 2018. The withdrawal of these three insurance carriers leaves 72,000 Iowans without any insurance options for next year. With this looming insurance crisis these three Democrats decided they weren’t going to allow vulnerable Iowans to lose their coverage without a fight.

    Compare that to the near silence from Iowa Republicans, including then-Governor Branstad and Lt. Governor Reynolds. In a May 4th article in the Des Moines Register, all the Iowa Republicans quoted including Governor Branstad, Senator Grassley and Senator Ernst said it was up to the U. S. House and Senate to fix the Iowa problem. They totally refused to address the specific Iowa Insurance Exchange crisis.

    The initial reaction from Iowa’s Insurance Commissioner, Doug Ommen, was similar. He said his hands were tied unless Congress acts. “This is a federally created situation, and we need a federally created solution,” he said.

    McCoy, Forbes and Hatch decided that they couldn’t wait for the feds to make a decision. This Iowa Healthcare crisis required an Iowa solution, and they began to research options. They called for a public forum on May 22nd and invited Iowa Insurance Commissioner Ommen. That pubic meeting generated a number of suggestions and possible solutions from Ommen, the Democrats and the public. It’s important to note that these three Democrats called for a bipartisan meeting with the Branstad-appointed Insurance Commissioner in an effort to seek common ground with Republicans. Compare the Iowa Democrats bipartisan public approach to the U.S. Senate Republicans’ secret healthcare meetings. The Senate Republicans have excluded not only Democrats but all the healthcare stakeholders involved.

    Following the May 22nd Iowa meeting, Insurance Commissioner Ommen went to Washington and met with Trump’s Health Care Administrator. He returned to Iowa with a stop-gap plan that would offer continuing coverage on the Exchange. Ommen went from saying in May that his hands were tied to a meeting in June that created an Iowa Heathcare plan. We must assume the pressure from these three Iowa Democrats helped motivate him to search for a solution.

    Following Ommen’s release of his stop-gap plan, these three Democrats along with other Democratic legislators met and thoroughly examined the Ommen proposal. After several conferences they designed their own “Public Option” alternative.

    The public meeting this week was called by McCoy, Forbes and Hatch to examine Commissioner Ommen’s plan, present their Democratic plan and get more public input on both. Ommen was invited but declined to attend the second public meeting.

    The Democrats’ “Public Option” solution they are proposing would utilize Medicaid as the vehicle to get the 72,000 Iowans insured for 2018 and beyond. The most appealing piece of the Democratic plan is the reliance on Iowa’s proven history with Medicaid.

    Prior to Branstad’s disastrous Medicaid privatization, Iowa’s government-run Medicaid program was the envy of the nation. It had low overhead, provided quality care and was less costly. The Democrats plan would eliminate the failed Branstad/Reynolds Medicaid privatization, return Medicaid to state-run control and simply allow the 72,000 individuals and families to buy into Medicaid at affordable rates. The state-run Medicaid program would reduce costs by taking the profit out of the privatized system and use it to lower premiums and or deductibles.

    The Democrats acknowledged and thanked Ommen for his stop-gap proposal, but pointed out the serious flaws in his plan. It would clearly result in higher premiums. Medica stated this week that if they re-enter the exchange under the Ommen plan they will raise their premiums by 43%. The Ommen plan would offer $80 million in taxpayer funded reinsurance for high risk customers. This is a huge profit boosting gift to Wellmark in order to lure them back to the Exchange. Wellmark has said they would re-enter the market based on Ommen’s proposal getting implemented quickly.

    Iowans have real world experience comparing private and public insurance options. Iowa’s public Medicaid was working extremely well prior to Branstad/Reynolds blowing it up with their catastrophic private alternative. McCoy, Forbes and Hatch are proposing that Iowa return to a proven, economical and quality public Medicaid option. Other insurance companies could compete, and we can have a verifiable test between the public and private choices.

    This battle is just beginning and it will be a fight. Private insurers won’t easily give up their control, or their profits and it will require all Democrats to unite behind the “Public Option.” These three Iowa Democrats will need the public’s support to make this work.

    https://iowastartingline.com/2017/06...althcare-plan/
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 06-24-2017 at 04:19 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  32. #28
    Medicaid: The New Public Option?


    by Jennifer Lav & Hector Hernandez-Delgado on March 14, 2018



    A year ago, Medicaid expansion was under intense assault, and the threat of repeal was all too real. In the face of these attacks, the Nevada Legislature asked a simple question: if the federal government eliminates Medicaid expansion, why not allow those losing Medicaid to buy it back? Individuals with incomes between 100-138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) receive high subsidies on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace to buy insurance. If they could use these subsidies to buy Medicaid coverage, they could keep their health insurance with the federal government footing most of the bill.

    The Nevada bill died, but the idea did not. Other states have proposed using these so-called “buy-ins,” not as a substitute for Medicaid expansion, but rather as a way to address other problems with the ACA Marketplace. In the past year, legislators in at least six states have introduced bills either to create an actual “Medicaid buy-in,” or to create task forces to study it. After all, the concept of a “public option”, i.e., a public health insurance plan to compete with health insurance plans on the private market, has been bandied about for years. So is now the right time and is Medicaid the right vehicle?

    Buy-ins have the potential to achieve a variety of goals. They could provide a new coverage option that may be more affordable or comprehensive than Marketplace coverage. Medicaid, on average, costs less per person than private insurance and provides benefits that are more robust. Buy-ins could also create additional coverage options in counties with limited ACA Marketplace choices.

    While these state-level public options present substantial opportunities, caution is key. Serious legal questions arise regarding waivers of provisions under both the ACA and the Medicaid Act that may be necessary to implement buy-ins. Further, buy-ins should be carefully crafted to meet specific, well-defined goals appropriate for the state. We propose three guardrails to protect affordability and benefits for enrollees, and costs to state Medicaid programs:

    1. Medicaid buy-ins should not be used as a substitute for Medicaid expansion. Buy-ins as a substitute for Medicaid expansion implicate serious affordability concerns for low-income enrollees. A buy-in, by definition, contemplates imposing premiums on participants. Conversely, the Medicaid Act protects affordability by prohibiting premiums on individuals below 150 percent FPL and some populations may never be charged a premium, regardless of income level. For low-income enrollees, the premiums for a buy-in are simply terrible policy and create barriers to coverage. Thus, Medicaid expansion is the better path.

    2. Buy-ins should not worsen covered benefits. First, individuals who could be eligible for Medicaid should be enrolled in Medicaid and always receive the benefits that they are entitled. Second, Marketplace enrollees who opt for a Medicaid buy-in should still receive a benefit package that meets the minimum coverage standards in the Marketplace, including all ten essential health benefits. Advocates should also consider state law requirements for Medicaid, and work to have those requirements applied to buy-ins (even when federal Medicaid funding is not implicated) to ensure that Medicaid protections and benefit requirements apply.

    3. Medicaid should not subsidize insurance for non-Medicaid buy-in populations. Buy-ins have the potential to increase overall costs in Medicaid by, intentionally or not, altering the Medicaid risk pool (i.e. the group of individuals insured). In a managed care context, if the Medicaid buy-in population is more costly than the current Medicaid risk pool, it could increase the cost of insurance in that risk pool for everyone. This could in effect lead to Medicaid subsidizing health care for the buy-in population. Encouraging individuals with high needs to “use” Medicaid’s risk pool could lower the costs for private insurance while adding costs to Medicaid. To protect the integrity of current Medicaid programs, advocates should guard against proposals that risk using Medicaid as a de-facto high-risk pool.

    Medicaid buy-ins are not a panacea for all that ails the Marketplace. They implicate serious concerns regarding affordability, benefits, and program integrity. However, if carefully designed, buy-ins could potentially provide a comprehensive and affordable choice in some geographic areas and for some populations. They are an option worth exploring.

    http://www.healthlaw.org/blog/705-me...-public-option
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  33. #29
    This author says, "Taxpayer dollars already fund the science behind new medications. Let’s create a public company to market them and bring their prices down."


    Sounds like a winner!



    Article We Need a Public Option for Prescription Drugs
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  34. #30
    But the truth is that former President Obama was right the first time around when he supported a public option in his primary debates with Hillary Clinton,...
    https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2...date-proposal/
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



Similar Threads

  1. Public option for Obamacare
    By Madison320 in forum Obamacare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 02:19 PM
  2. Opt Out with a Public Option
    By progressiveforpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2011, 08:39 PM
  3. Rollergirl is the Public Option....
    By BamaFanNKy in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 07:01 PM
  4. Out-Out Public Option is in...
    By Thrashertm in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-27-2009, 06:30 AM
  5. Forced into Public option?
    By Griffith in forum Health Freedom
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-30-2009, 09:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •