Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by classicman

... and how cost effective are they?
What are the positive & negative attributes of each?

I have never been in the FEHB plan (I was in the Congressional plan for two years more than 20 years ago)..but friends and colleagues who have been in both FEHB and private sector plans cite greater choice in FEHB at comparable premium prices. I currently have a choice from among three plans at varying premiums....feds in FEHB have 8-10 plans (I think) from which to chose.

How do they differ from the current independent plans available?

I assume by independent plans, you mean plans in which an uninsured person purchases insurance on the open market, with no employer contribution. the biggest difference, particulary for workers in small business who dont provide insurance, would still be a shared cost with employer (but less for the employer than if he had to go to the independent market - a matter of risk size and diversity). The other difference, independent plans are able to cherry pick their risks. YOu have a pre-existing condition or approaching medicare eligibility in a few years...forget it, no independent plan will touch you.

Why cannot those people without insurance become covered under one of those plans?

I think it was part of the Clinton plan..but the whole plan was so disjointed and poorly presented in the first months of the administration, with Hillary as as the point person, that they were completely unprepared for and underestimated the backlash and just fucked it up.

Instead, Clinton focused on uninsured children of working class families and created the SCHIP program, which covered 6 million kids....funding through a dedicated tax (cigarette tax)

The other issue is the screwed up regulatory environment at the state level, where in many states, small employers cannot join together to create a shared risk pool.

Why didnt Bush/Republicans consider it in the six years when they had control? You would have to ask a Republican.

The fact is, they didnt seriously consider any health care reform as costs continued to go up and access to go down. Hell, Bush twice vetoed SCHIP expansion to cover more kids of working families.

[Why do we need another Gov't run/administered program?

We dont need another government run program like Medicare.

But a government administered public/private program, primarily for small businesses and those uninsured who are above the Medicaid eligibility, as well as making it an option for those with employer-based plans, will provide more choice and affordability through greater competition with the existing private (independent) plans.

It would provide an incentive for those private insurance companies to be more efficient and more responsive to consumers. They are not hurting for profits...the top 5-10 private health care providers made $10+ billion in profits last year. Profits are determined in part (and in some states) based on a percentage of premiums....the higher the premiums, the greater the profit.

They have a choke-hold on the current system and it is a money making machine that they control in near absolute terms.....to their interests, not the health care consumers.

added:
What is your alternative for the 45+ million uninsured and the rising costs and fewer choices for those who are insured?