I've been trying to understand some of the claims regarding the public option for a while now and not satisfied with the answers. So sweet! the CBO eliminated some cognitive dissonance for me.

Damn! Because I wanted to be wrong.

I'm not so sure the PO is dead though in part because of the remaining questions and in part because of the non-budgetary arguments in its favor. A big issue obviously is what tricks the insurance companies come up with and whether congress retains any stomach for fighting them (campaign finance reform anyone?).

I can imagine scenarios where the PO is chopped from this package and added in say 4 years, but too much speculation at this point seems worthless.

The problem is that in one view many insurance companies want the PO knowing it will not work without cost controls (such as accepting pre-existing conditions) and drive business to them. The other view is that the government will support the PO at all costs which will put private insurance out of business. It is hard to say which way the government will roll especially if Congress changes hands.

gunsmoke:

The problem is that in one view many insurance companies want the PO knowing it will not work without cost controls (such as accepting pre-existing conditions) and drive business to them. The other view is that the government will support the PO at all costs which will put private insurance out of business. It is hard to say which way the government will roll especially if Congress changes hands.

The Public Option is still the best IMVHO. Keep in mind that insurance companies take out one dollar in four in profits, whereas the government wouldn't. For the same patients then, the government would have to be MORE than 25% more inefficient before it lost money.

The real reason the insurance companies are cheaper is the kick out sick people, who end up being paid for by the taxpayer. Since the taxpayer pays for the sick already, you might as well take the insurance companies out of the loop.

Where did you get that 25% number? Health Insurance companies on average earn a little over 2% in profits. Which they then distribute to their shareholders; you know, the retirement plans of nearly every citizen of the United States. More to the point, what is wrong with profit? If there were no profit, no one would ever undertake to do anything productive at all. To believe otherwise is to say that you would be willing to work for free. A question: What is a fair profit for any company to earn, as a percentage of revenue? If the 2.2% of the insurance companies must be crushed out of existence, then would 1% be OK? Seriously, what is a fair profit percentage for a company to earn?

DaveyNC:

Where did you get that 25% number? Health Insurance companies on average earn a little over 2% in profits. Which they then distribute to their shareholders; you know, the retirement plans of nearly every citizen of the United States. More to the point, what is wrong with profit? If there were no profit, no one would ever undertake to do anything productive at all. To believe otherwise is to say that you would be willing to work for free. A question: What is a fair profit for any company to earn, as a percentage of revenue? If the 2.2% of the insurance companies must be crushed out of existence, then would 1% be OK? Seriously, what is a fair profit percentage for a company to earn?

25% is what aetna's chief's goal was. They did that for a time. Currently it's about 10%. <link>

where did you get the 2% number?

There's nothing wrong with profit - IF something useful is being provided in return. If there is NOT something useful being provided, that "profit" is really "loss" for the people paying the bill.