I guess I'm not understanding it, but it seems to me a public option *helps* the insurance companies

[Richardo]

I guess not, or they'd be spending millions of dollars in lobbying money to get it passed instead of blocked.

But, is this not how it would work? the private insurance companies could pawn off all the expensive, high risk, high maintenance, pre-existing condition patients to the public insurance option. That leaves them 'competing' for the low risk, young, healthy policy holders who represent little chance of actually needing to use their insurance coverage in any meaningful way. Result? Astronomical margins and high profits.

What am I missing here? I admit that I'm totally unclear on the concept of the 'insurance exchanges'.

[Barack_America]

1. The bill would also prevent them from denying people based on pre-existing conditions.

So they wouldn't necessarily be able to deny those people and force them over to the public option.

[Richardo]

4. I understand that (and a good thing too).

But it seems that they'd still have rate schedules that reflected the expected actuarial payouts of any one policy holder (or group of policy holders). More healthy, lower premiums.

[Curtland1015]

2. If everyone opted for public coverage, the insurance companies would go out of business.

Their business is all based on volume. Most people would opt for public care simply for the savings, leaving private insurers to wither and die. Not that that's a BAD thing.

[KatyMan]

5. But wouldn't the insurance companies

be the ones to administer the program? I know in Texas, Medicaid is administered by United Health, they just bill the state and have to work within the state's parameters.

[valerief]

3. Everyone would jump ship to the public option, where lower costs would keep premiums down and where

they wouldn't get their claims rejected.