Comments on: Should IN Opt Out?

By: Think Again

Think Again — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:07:11 +0000

I don't honestly know if a public option is the best route. But here's what I do know:

In Indiana, one company has 44.5% of the market. Its next-closest competitor has 11%.

There are 19 states where one company has over 50% of the market.

There are 6 states, including three of our largest, where one company has over two-thirds of the market.

Look: it's expensive to establish and operate a private insurance company. They're not starting up left-and-right...there probably won't be any new ones anytime soon. So, what we now have, is probably all we're going to get from the private sector.

And what we now have, is rife with inconsistency, anti-trust protection and state-to-state (borderline) corrupt practices.

As we dawdle discussing all our options, our international competitive situation worsens, for many reasons....but one of the most succinct is the cost of health care. Our international competitor nations have nationalized health care, so their "private" sectors don't have to worry about it. They pay taxes, but...somehow, their companies come over here and sell products cheaper and, too often, better.

I don't have all the answers. But what we're doing isn't working, and the private sector, left unchecked, in this category at least, has failed us miserably. State insurance regulatory systems are a patchwork that allow insurance companies to dodge effective oversight.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:07:11 +0000

By: Taxpayer 834512

Taxpayer 834512 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:38:08 +0000

Sean nails it. With (presently) 2000 pgs at their disposal, inapplicable to Congress, suppossedly to be paid for by cuts, reform and efficiencies that should have already taken, written in sufficient “regulatoryese” to cloak nearly anything, – I'd be shocked if opting out will be a real option.

You have a chance, NOW. Maybe only NOW. Keep calling or writing your Congressmen, talk shows, and urge voting NO to this health care “reform”. Further expansion of entitlements with money we don't have is not resolution we can pass on to our children.

By: Fact Checker

Fact Checker — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:18:09 +0000

Again, you have to be “in” to opt out. The bill as currently proposed would give states an option to opt out after a number of years in the program. It does not give the states the option not to participate from the onset. If it is successful then no state is going to opt out….if it is not successful then every state should opt out. I personally believe that it will be successful but only time will tell.

By: malercous

malercous — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:43:58 +0000

Abdul; I'm with you on this one. I hope Indiana, and all the other red states opt-out. First, because they'd still be paying in to the system, although likely not full boat. (Do you really believe that the federal gov. will give $ to states opting out? Those that would are saying they don't want the federal gov. to help their citizens but, oh, give us $ to help our citizens.)
And second, because in a few more years the people will see how the Republicans "helped" them out on this one and will then vote accordingly.
A backlog of 25,000 shows how good Indiana's system is working. And next year when there is a backlog of 30,000 it will means the system is working even better.
The reality is that the republicans missed the boat on this issue and the democrats will "own" it. Kinda like Social Security. I love it.
I don't get the voucher thing. Another giveaway to big biz, inc. Corporate welfare already accounts for about 4 of every 5 welfare dollars spent today, and if we have to give out welfare the wealthy should get the most, not poor people.
Why exactly is it that someone has to make (not earn) a buck off of a person's medical maladies? Is the cost of health insiurance so low that we can afford to pay an extra 20-30% for it to be private rather than public? Or did I miss something and health insurance providers actually do add some "value?"
To be certain, I am looking at this thru liberal-colored glasses wherein people are more important than profits. After all, the more money one has the happier one is. This also applies to the uber-rich, as an additional $10 mil. to one worth $500 mil. will allow them to do things they couldn't afford to otherwise.

By: Matthew Stone

Matthew Stone — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:47:31 +0000

Unfortunately, forcing legislation on states via blackmail isn't exclusive to any one political party. States were going to lose a lot of highway money if they didn't “voluntarily” raise the drinking age to 21 back in the 1980s.

By: agman

agman — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:57:12 +0000

Very likely the opt out option will be taken by some of the overly reactive R governors just as some were not going to participate in any of the stimulus programs. And anyone thinking that taxpayers in states that opt out won't be paying should get real. Whether the public option or any part of the plan is a good thing or not will have to await to observe how it ultimately works. Several actions that might be able to reduce costs such as limits on liability awards (how much of a doctor's bill, how much of a hospital's bill, how much of a precription bill, how much of an health insurance policy cost, etc… then reality check on administrative salaries and reasonable profits will be essential for investor return or govenment will be the only option.

By: Rico

Rico — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:19:48 +0000

I'm not sure how old you are, Mike, but this was over twenty years ago. And states were, in fact, threatened with the loss of federal highway funding.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:07:45 +0000

If I am paying, I want the option. How else is someone like me supposed to get insurance when I decide that I want to join the consumer/non-producer class? Getting up at 5AM for work is getting to be a pain, especially when I have to constantly toss nickles, dimes, quarters, and dollars to various elites so they can rake in big bucks with their public-private partnerships.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:23:37 +0000

Yep, that's on the money.

A bureaucrat's "dream" is taxing the dreams of others; immoral claims to / on the life & times of other human beings. That ain't a "love thing."

Adding to your list of four cities:

1) LA: Metro area has lost dozens of Wishards or ER facilities, due to an oversupply of public sector "solutions."

2) NYC: Exodus of tax base (people who actually pay for the stuff government forces them to pay for until they escape or leave) is resulting in less "revenue" to maintain the girth of local blubberment.

3) Chicago: Behind several months in its bills, looking at cuts & shorter work weeks for public employees. No buyers, no market for several suburban homes being sold for one dollar.

4) Detroit: "Socialist art," an interpretation of a doughnut hole.