I'm starting to feel a little better.

[lookin]

Consumer Watchdog, a California consumer rights group, is planning to put a healthcare measure on the 2012 ballot that would offer Californians a public option for healthcare insurance. That's been my goal all along, and I was disappointed that it was not a major component of the federal Affordable Care Act, although the 'insurance exchanges' in the ACA may well morph into the closest thing we can get to a national public option. In the meantime, I'm glad to see California stepping up.

It won't be a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. According to this article, the insurance companies may spend $100 million to defeat the measure, and that is a lot of advertising in just one state. It surprises me that more folks aren't tuned in to the fact that so much of their insurance premiums go to this kind of lobbying, rather than being spent to improve their medical care. Or to lower their rates.

For me, the elephant in the room has always been that U. S. health insurance companies spend 30 cents of every premium dollar on overhead and profits. If you compare that with the 1 - 2 cents spent by Canada on administering its health care plan, it's pretty easy to see why U. S. healthcare is so expensive relative to nations with a similar level of care. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for insurers in the system, but I don't think it's the same role they fill today. In my opinion, their current business model is simply a luxury than many consumers can no longer afford.

The things I'm not sure I like about the California initiative is the proposed 20% premium rollback and the attempt to regulate rates. I think it just adds 'noise' to the debate. My preference would be to let the insurance companies be just as greedy as they like. As long as there's a public option available, side by side with the insurance companies' offerings, let the consumer make the choice.

If folks want to pay $72,000,000 to the outgoing CEO of Aetna, who am I to stop them?

[Guest hitoallusa]

They are used to luxurious life style and they want to keep it that way. At the expense of others since the fake bubble can't sustain their lifestyle any more.

What can they do? I've recently seen another ad that misleads people too. There are super powers. Why run for president when you can live better than a president. Put not so smart one (I'm not suggesting that Obama is not smart) in the office and let him do their biddings, and then relax and enjoy life. Just share some perks with politicians and they will be your friends in no time.

Consumer Watchdog, a California consumer rights group, is planning to put a healthcare measure on the 2012 ballot that would offer Californians a public option for healthcare insurance. That's been my goal all along, and I was disappointed that it was not a major component of the federal Affordable Care Act, although the 'insurance exchanges' in the ACA may well morph into the closest thing we can get to a national public option. In the meantime, I'm glad to see California stepping up.

It won't be a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. According to this article, the insurance companies may spend $100 million to defeat the measure, and that is a lot of advertising in just one state. It surprises me that more folks aren't tuned in to the fact that so much of their insurance premiums go to this kind of lobbying, rather than being spent to improve their medical care. Or to lower their rates.

For me, the elephant in the room has always been that U. S. health insurance companies spend 30 cents of every premium dollar on overhead and profits. If you compare that with the 1 - 2 cents spent by Canada on administering its health care plan, it's pretty easy to see why U. S. healthcare is so expensive relative to nations with a similar level of care. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for insurers in the system, but I don't think it's the same role they fill today. In my opinion, their current business model is simply a luxury than many consumers can no longer afford.

The things I'm not sure I like about the California initiative is the proposed 20% premium rollback and the attempt to regulate rates. I think it just adds 'noise' to the debate. My preference would be to let the insurance companies be just as greedy as they like. As long as there's a public option available, side by side with the insurance companies' offerings, let the consumer make the choice.

If folks want to pay $72,000,000 to the outgoing CEO of Aetna, who am I to stop them?

[TampaYankee]

Consumer Watchdog, a California consumer rights group, is planning to put a healthcare measure on the 2012 ballot that would offer Californians a public option for healthcare insurance. That's been my goal all along, and I was disappointed that it was not a major component of the federal Affordable Care Act, although the 'insurance exchanges' in the ACA may well morph into the closest thing we can get to a national public option. In the meantime, I'm glad to see California stepping up.

I've seen a couple of articles about companies getting near the point of pulling the plug on employer provided health care. Other businesses seem ready to phase it over to the employee by freezing and ultimately reducing dollar amount contributions as costs increase. (My employer did that over ten years ago.)

Personally, I believe it is bad policy for employers to be the middle man. Bad for business and ultimately bad for the health care system. It inhibits American Business competitiveness with foreign companies who do not have that burden and shields much of the population from feeliing the daily pinch of the rising health care costs which does little to inhibit rising costs. As long as people can use as little or as much of health care services without feeling the cost of each visit or service it does nothing to cut back on unecssary visits or testing. To the contrary, if consumers have more day-to-day rubs with the expensiveness of health care then they would care more about getting the costs contained. Right now some third party takes care of it for them until time to set rates for the new year and business eats a lot of that... for now.

However, as long as we have employer provided health care, I feel it is not only good health policy and business policy but imperative for fairness that all health care benefits should be taxed as regular income. It amounts to a government subsidy, nothing less. I know this would hit me hard as I have employer subsidized health care. However, if we do not get the system on a sound long term cost containment track then only the chosen will end up having health care. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing the chosen if they cannot subsidize everyone.

I believe that commercial for-profit insurance companies are bad for the basic health care system. Profits, affordability, and not-optional health care are inconsistent concepts. I see nothing wrong with not-for-profits offering a nongoverment alternative which was the original concept for Blue Cross & Blue Shield before going Wall St. Only a few regional nonprofits are found: Mayo Clinics, Cleveland Clinic, and the hybrid nonprofit/profit Kaiser Permanente to name a some standouts. Not suprisingly these are well known for delivering high quality cost effective health care.

I also favor a government option as a realistic alternative source of competition in health care. In my world I would see a single payer universal health care system or a cooperative effort of a pubic option with not-for-profits for basic health care coverage with supplemental insurance provided by not-for-profit and for-profit insurance companies for those that prefer expensive brand name drugs over generics, private rooms or over semiprivate, extraordinary above-and-beyond end-of-life care coverage. That should meet the need of everyone with those who can afford more getting more.

[Guest Allessio77]

Can any state that wants it, begin a public option program? Somebody told me Vermont is doing exactly that.

[BiBottomBoy]

Any state can try to start one, but anyone w ho votes for it will have the insurance companies throw a lot of money at whoever runs against them in the next election.