I'm Embarrassed To Ask, But What The Hell . . .

[Dinger]

What's the difference between a public option and a "trigger"?


There, I did it. Come what may.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Wow. You're in trouble NOW.

Just kidding. I've no idea.

[eleny]

2. A trigger is a set of circumstances that takes place and makes the public option kick in

If the insurance companies don't fulfill certain promises like lowering their annual profit rate then the public option will be "triggered".

[valerief]

3. A trigger is supposed to kick in a public option after several years if

the insurance companies don't do what they're supposed to do (whatever that is and whoever the hell will actually enforce this). In the meantime they can do what they want and most likely continue to do what they want after the trigger deadline.

Public option means the government is the payer of your medical bills. You pay a sliding scale premium. The government is much less likely to deny a claim than any insurance company is.

Of course, if they were serious about lowering medical costs, we'd have Medicare for All.

[TayTay]

5. One small correction

a public option does not mean the government is paying for health care for those who sign up to receive their health care this way. The public option would create a non-profit hybrid group that will be funded through rate payers. It will NOT, by design, use government funds to pay for member care.

[valerief]

7. Oh, I see. I thought the govt would decide on which claims to pay, but you say

it's a non-profit org that would do this. I do know that the premiums paid would fund the insurance pool and the govt would supplement premiums depending on that sliding scale. Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't clear about it.

So would the non-profit org deny claims like insurance companies do?

[TayTay]

8. The public option would pay for claims, not seek ways to get around paying

IT is also designed to be a large bargaining unit that can deal with big pharmaceutical companies, health care providers and so forth to lower costs. If there are enough people in this system, it becomes a market force of note that can deal from a position of power with health care providers, drug companies and so forth to lower costs. The theory also goes that if this public option creates a successful entity that does offer good and less expensive coverage for subscribers then insurance-company backed plans will have to follow suit or lose subscribers.

It would provide insurance that actually pays bills for subscribers. (Lord, what a great concept. We should do that. Have health insurance that actually pays for health insurance claims. LOL! )

Other provisions in the overall bill would forbid insurance companies from denying claims based on pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies now employ armies of investigators to get out of paying claims. This HAS TO STOP. It is close to being a crime against humanity, in my book.

[valerief]

9. Anyone with half a brain would opt into the public option (if they could) simply

to avoid having claims denied by for-profit insurance companies, which will probably have in the bill twenty years to "get up to speed" to stop denying claims. I'm sure they "wouldn't be able to implement this change" right away.

[TayTay]

11. True, but the public option would not go online right away

It is my understanding, though this is kind of fuzzy to me right now, that this entity would be phased in as well. That makes sense as it would be difficult to bring something that big in scope to "market" as it were quickly.

I have a feeling that the public option would result in something new and something that we don't currently envision. (Law of unintended consequences ) But I think it should be a part of the bill. We need something for people that gives them health insurance, not the promise of health insurance and a pile of bills. We also need something to kick insurance companies to get their act in gear. If the public option does that and assists in controlling costs, then it will be a tremendous contribution to society.

[valerief]

12. Medicare for All could be phased in easily, I would think. nt

[TayTay]

13. I don't think so

Even if we hate it, we still have to acknowledge that health care is 14-16% of the GDP. That also means a heck of a lot of jobs are tied into the health care industry. Removing those jobs, as we would be doing by removing administrators and the middle-men in the industry now with a Medicare-for-all would have severe unintended consequences.

[valerief]

14. Hence phased in. The horse and buggy got phased out, too. nt

[TayTay]

15. Yup

But it would take a while. A long while.

[depakid]

17. Easily by 2013 -which is when the hapless Dems seem to have set their sights

for some sort of public option.

[Samantha]

4. I am not the best person to answer this explicitly but I will try

because you deserve an answer.

A public option, by example, could be Medicare for All. As yet, the public option is defined by many people to be different things, so I will just use the example I quote. Medicare For All would allow those who chose to do so, or for one reason or another had to do so, to opt in before the now required eligibility age of 65. You perhaps could be 55, lose your job and your health insurance and could "buy" into Medicare.

Those who oppose a public option, now considered a compromise by many who originally wanted simple a single payer option, suggest we hold the public option in suspense. In other words, do not make it operational or functional for now. Instead, write into law a "trigger" meaning if the health insurers do not live up to the mandates contained in the final bill, the trigger would kick in and the public option would become functional.

In my humble opinion, the trigger should have been pulled years ago when the health insurers started taking financial advantage of its enrollees. We are at a crisis stage, with many in our Country going without much needed health care and those in health care crisis facing, for instances, foreclosure due to the abominably high cost of health care. To illustrate, no one in Canada, under that system, ever goes bankrupt and/or loses their home because of a catastrophic health care problem.

The time for reform is now. We are in crisis. It is too late to write in a trigger and hope for the health insurers shape up. We need reform NOW.

Hope this helps.

Sam

[gateley]

6. HERE! I asked the question earlier and got some great responses, so now I get it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6465454&mesg_id=6465454

[PassingFair]

10. It's like counting to "3" when your kid is acting up....

trouble is, you never get to three.

[jberryhill]

16. Simple - Let's See How Many Surplus Deaths We Can Put Up With For A While /nt

[jberryhill]

18. A Trigger Is The Operative Part Of A Weapon Used To Kill People

Simple.

Don't have insurance? We'll put a gun to your head and hold the trigger for a few years.

[jeanpalmer]

19. A trigger is a trick

something to make you think you're getting public option when you're not. It's an escape hatch for politicians who promised a public option but don't have the honesty or the balls to go to the mat for it.

[avaistheone1]

20. A trigger is for dummies.

We won't accept any stinking trigger. WE can't afford to wait for a trigger. No more deaths waiting for decent health care. No more more bankruptcies because people can't afford health insurance.