Public Health Plan Not Threatening?
President Obama persists in making the claim that a "public health plan" competing with private plans should not be threatening to the private plans. This is a disingenuous statement, and I have to believe that he knows that but makes the statement over and over again in spite of that knowledge.
The "public plan" will be set up similarly to Medicare. There is no similarity to private plans.
Government makes the rules. Private plans follow the rules.
Government tells providers what it will pay for services. Private plans negotiate with providers to determine what will be paid.
Government decides what it will cover. Private plans still follow the rules.
Government underpayments result in costs being shifted to private insurers. Negotiated reimbursements rise because of that.
Government plans need not make a profit; they have an endless supply of tax dollars. Private plans must be profitable.
Government plans will have a cheaper "apparent" price than private plans. Private plans will lose their business to public plans. Once private plans are no longer in business, there is only one source for coverage, and that is the public plan.
Government plans need not worry about "customer" satisfaction. Private plan customers vote with their feet.
These are but some of the differences that make the "public plans aren't threatening to private plans" statements disingenuous.
We can go even further into archives and find the statements made by Sen. Obama telling listeners that he favors a single payer plan run by the government. I don't believe that he has changed his mind; I do believe that he is saying what he thinks needs be said to get what he wants passed.
We are not being told the truth, and we are expected to simply roll over and let it happen to us. Once there is this "public plan", called a Trojan Horse by some, its prices will be less and employers will simply cancel their plans and let employees enroll in the cheaper public plans. That is exactly what will happen.
If such comments were to be made by an insurance company president, in the face of facts to the contrary, he or she would be brought up on charges of fraud. At the very least, he'd find himself being ridiculed by government.
If the public plan is so good, why is it that the members of Congress, the President and all federal workers are to be exempt from it?
Why do we persist in allowing politicians who lie to us to get away with those lies?
The "public plan" will be set up similarly to Medicare. There is no similarity to private plans.
Government makes the rules. Private plans follow the rules.
Government tells providers what it will pay for services. Private plans negotiate with providers to determine what will be paid.
Government decides what it will cover. Private plans still follow the rules.
Government underpayments result in costs being shifted to private insurers. Negotiated reimbursements rise because of that.
Government plans need not make a profit; they have an endless supply of tax dollars. Private plans must be profitable.
Government plans will have a cheaper "apparent" price than private plans. Private plans will lose their business to public plans. Once private plans are no longer in business, there is only one source for coverage, and that is the public plan.
Government plans need not worry about "customer" satisfaction. Private plan customers vote with their feet.
These are but some of the differences that make the "public plans aren't threatening to private plans" statements disingenuous.
We can go even further into archives and find the statements made by Sen. Obama telling listeners that he favors a single payer plan run by the government. I don't believe that he has changed his mind; I do believe that he is saying what he thinks needs be said to get what he wants passed.
We are not being told the truth, and we are expected to simply roll over and let it happen to us. Once there is this "public plan", called a Trojan Horse by some, its prices will be less and employers will simply cancel their plans and let employees enroll in the cheaper public plans. That is exactly what will happen.
If such comments were to be made by an insurance company president, in the face of facts to the contrary, he or she would be brought up on charges of fraud. At the very least, he'd find himself being ridiculed by government.
If the public plan is so good, why is it that the members of Congress, the President and all federal workers are to be exempt from it?
Why do we persist in allowing politicians who lie to us to get away with those lies?
Posted by The Curmudgeon at 6/24/2009 12:50 PM 
Categories: Politics,People,Taxes,Health Care,Economy,Quality of Life
Categories: Politics,People,Taxes,Health Care,Economy,Quality of Life
The exemption of congress and federal employees from these health plans says a lot about how good these plans will be. Why isn't the media and plan foes making an issue of this?
Reply to this