Beyond "opt-out", "opt-in", and "trigger" public options

[clear eye]

According to the AP,

A new idea being discussed was national nonprofit insurance plans that would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the popular Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., a key centrist, was enthusiastic about the idea, which she's proposed in different forms in the past. "I think it bodes well for being able to do what we want to do, which is to create greater choice and options in the marketplace," she said.

Liberals were cool to the proposal, holding out for a fully government-run plan.

These nonprofit private plans would be instead of a public option.

If we ever get universal coverage, this is probably the form it will take, which is unfortunately the least economic way of going about it. It doesn't provide the administrative savings of single payer (still requires multiple systems of paperwork and liasoning w/ hospitals, etc.), and multiple administrative structures. It would be similar to the Dutch system, but on a much larger scale.

[Ms. Toad]

1. Any of these ring a bell?

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Kaiser Permanente
Rocky Mountain Health Plans

Hint: They are all non-profit private plans, one of which is truly national, another of which offers insurance in a significant number of states. None of them offer rates significantly better than their for-profit counterparts.

Edited to correct a typo.

[ShortnFiery]

2. ...

THRIVE! :crazy:

[clear eye]

3. Whoops.

You meant "for-profit", not "non-profit" counterparts.

[Ms. Toad]

4. Fixed. Thanks. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

5. It would be better than nothing, as long as it addresses the needs of those who are now uninsured

and keeps insurance companies from denying claims or canceling insurance to those in need, as well as dealing with the preexisting conditions problem.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Those restrictions are actually imposed by the rest of the bill

(which will apply to the non-profit insurance plans mentioned above that already dominate the market).

Non-profit insurance is really nothing new - what is new is all of the other restrictions.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. a non profit administered by a government agency would be new, wouldn't it?

This still helps take the profit motive out of health care decisions, and it creates a regulatory agency (kinda) to help the little guy deal with the corporations.


Not my first choice by any means, but better than nothing.

[Ms. Toad]

8. The concept doesn't really make sense.

Non-profit agencies are still fully independent businesses. They just don't have making a profit as a goal - so the profit motive is already out of health care decisions. The non-profit itself couldn't be administered directly by the government without turning it into - essentially - a government agency (the public option).

Non-profits insurance companies will already be part of the exchange (indirect administration) - so I can't see this proposal really changes anything.