For the sake of open debate and just to humor me, what say you put some meat on the bones to the extent you are able since you have a good deal of access to actuals numbers. I fully agree beforehand that the PO is only a transitional plan toward a SP.

The difference between the cost savings among the PO and the private plan is the immediate threshold question at issue here. It goes to the inherent ability of each plan to operate at a lower cost while achieving the same level of care for all subscribers.

When the PO sets about to determine the right premium it will take a given community and divide it into the 2 genders and age quantiles between 18 and 65 years of age (lets say 10 year intervals) or roughly 4 quantiles, giving 8 groups all together. Then it will take a random statistically representative cohort and determine the likely yearly health related cost for each group and extrapolate that cost to the entire community. It will then set actuarial tables for the premiums of each of the 8 groups.

Now when a randomly chosen representative cohort is chosen it must contain for each of the 8 groups more relatively healthy than relatively sick people with accordingly associated health costs

How the process differs for a private plan is that within these same 8 groups they will focus their efforts on insuring the least costly persons. With those left unpurused and uninsured then going to the PO plan.

Now some confounding variables are that the PO plan will offer Medicare + 5% rates and assesses no profit which allows for lower general costs. It also has lower managerial costs and charges. These allow for lower premiums and costs to the enrollee.

The private plan has associated higher profit and managerial costs and other charges which result in higher cost to the enrollee.

Now in order to determine whether in fact the PO is viable and preferable to the private plan one must do the math, while taking all these variables into account. Can you offer some rough estimates of what these comparative results would be?

The difference between the cost savings among the PO and the private plan is the immediate threshold question at issue here. It goes to the inherent ability of each plan to operate at a lower cost while achieving the same level of care for all subscribers.

When the PO sets about to determine the right premium it will take a given community and divide it into the 2 genders and age quantiles between 18 and 65 years of age (lets say 10 year intervals) or roughly 4 quantiles, giving 8 groups all together. Then it will take a random statistically representative cohort and determine the likely yearly health related cost for each group and extrapolate that cost to the entire community. It will then set actuarial tables for the premiums of each of the 8 groups.

Now when a randomly chosen representative cohort is chosen it must contain for each of the 8 groups more relatively healthy than relatively sick people with accordingly associated health costs

How the process differs for a private plan is that within these same 8 groups they will focus their efforts on insuring the least costly persons. With those left unpurused and uninsured then going to the PO plan.

Now some confounding variables are that the PO plan will offer Medicare + 5% rates and assesses no profit which allows for lower general costs. It also has lower managerial costs and charges. These allow for lower premiums and costs to the enrollee.

The private plan has associated higher profit and managerial costs and other charges which result in higher cost to the enrollee.

Now in order to determine whether in fact the PO is viable and preferable to the private plan one must do the math, while taking all these variables into account. Can you offer some rough estimates of what these comparative results would be?

and you aren’t saying he’s going with PO because it’s the right and decent thing to do are ya ?

’cause then you would have to ignore the rather large and highly influential constituency: L-A-B-O-R telling the Majority Leader, no PO, no dice

this is political expediency, not decency

I think if America does get a public option we should give him as much credit as we would have given him blame if we had not gotten it.

I say no Medicare for all? — then NO BILL! Anything less is just a gift to the evil bastards who sell you completely unnecessary and useless insurance policies. And BTW, if you’re happy with yours, then I submit you’ve never been really sick, and your premiums are going to rise like a rocket no matter what Harry Reid does. All of this Congressional and WH blather amounts to compromising with evil. You know what that means.

I think any reform this year will be partial halfway house. Need public option for everyone who wants it, and strict Swiss style federal health insurance regulation of private insurance. Anything else is weak reform that will start to unravel within a few years.

if we could have swiss style federal health insurance regulation, there would be no need for a po (i’ll leave aside for the moment that the success of a po depends on adequate regulation). however, given our gov’s current distain for regulation, especially of the FIRE sector, imo single payer is actually more politically feasible than swiss style regulation. if i didn’t think that regulation was such a difficult proposition with our lobbyist owned gov, i wouldn’t be such a single payer fanatic. at least the fight for single payer is out in the open where public mobilization can have a voice. relying on regulation puts the fight behind close doors, where the lobbyists are strongest and we are at our weakest.

no easy solution, and wishful thinking doesn’t change that.

my 2 cents. ymmv.