The article states this is is a “substitute” for the “public option”. I’m no expert but it looks to me like, in practice, it’s the same thing. Is this different in some way? Did the administration somehow slip this past conservative opponents?
The public option was supposed to be tied into medicare, so using medicare reimbursement rates and medicare providers. This plan is using the FEHB plan, so it isn’t the same thing. I don’t think the reimbursement rates are the same.
It’s just typical of how this administration operates. At least in this case it’s doing something popular.
Wesley brings up a good point about the “strong” public option. But that never had enough support to pass even among Democrats because it was just single payer by stealth. The strong public option wouldn’t have had to make a profit or even avoid losses. It would have been implicitly backstopped by the government. Of course its supporters said otherwise, but once it got popular it would be bailed out unconditionally when it ran into trouble, everyone knew that.
The “weak” public option, which would have had to compete on a level playing field with private insurance, did have enough support in the Democratic caucus and I believe that’s what passed in the original House bill.
So how is this different from the so-called “strong public option”? According to the article, under the ACA at least one of these plans have to be non-profit, and I’d think that the government could set the rates.
So other than the fact that it’s not administered by Medicare, what’s the difference?
Not sure which plan you refer to, but I was declared ineligible for private insurance because of a pre-existing condition and then last week I was declined for the government’s pre-existing condition insurance plan.
Unless I can successfully appeal it, I’ll be moving back overseas… only been in the US a couple months and having to leave again. 
(I left the US in 2002 because I couldn’t get insurance then)
Desert Nomad, When were you originally declined? As I understand it, you have to be uninsured due to a preexisting condition for at least 6 months before you can qualify for the government’s preexisting conditions plan (which is a bridge to 2014 when all insurance companies will be required to accept you in spite of your condition).
I guess they have good reasons for the 6 month waiting period, but it does seem unfair. Maybe when the two (or more) plans mentioned in the OP go into effect you’ll be eligible for one of them. In any case you should be eligible after you’ve been without insurance for 6 months (unless I misunderstand the rules).
I was on one of the high risk pools they created. You have to have been uninsured for 6 months, and have a letter of denial from an insurance company within a reasonable time frame of your application (something like a year, I forget exactly how long).
It is causing some problems because the federal high risk pools tend to be cheaper than a lot of state high risk pools. I believe in IL as an example the difference can be huge, like $1300 a month for the state pool but $400 for the federal pool. But you can’t switch from one to the other because you need the 6 month uninsurance gap.
I thought you had international health insurance. If so I’m guessing that would count against you. You can always move back in 2014.
It’s a stealth version of the strong public option. When I heard about it yesterday, my first thought was “Well played, Obama … well played.”
It sets up a government-run non-profit insurance plan in direct competition with existing insurance companies. Over the course of the next several decades the lower operating costs of the non-profit will gradually drive the for-profit plans out of the mass market, transforming it into a de facto national health service. And once market dominance is achieved, it will be administrated as such.
People will still be free to pick private plans, I don’t see them getting banned. But a public option tied to medicare or based on the VA is going to be much cheaper than a private plan.
However I think in the switzerland (I could be thinking of another country) the insurance companies spend something like 96% of income on medical costs, vs the 75-80% they spend here. So maybe private insurance will become more competitive.
The public plan will only be able to compete if it can take losses and be backed up by taxpayers.
And that, my friend, is exactly the theory that this non-profit plan is designed to test. If your claim is true then there should be no concerns about this plan.
The concern is that if enough people depend on it, it will get bailed out.
Just to be clear, this version of the public option has to rely solely on premiums for its funding, right?
Yup, indeed it will. But by the time that point arrives, ditching it will be unthinkable. As I said, well played.
As I understand it, it’s not a public option (at least not in the sense it was used during the ACA debate). It’s a nation-wide insurance plan (two, actually, one NFP). The hypothesis in the NYT article is that, since the federal government already runs such a plan (GEHA) it would be a likely choice for one of the two plans.
Both plans will be funded through premiums just like GEHA currently is for federal employees.
The big concern seems to be that the multi-state plans will not have to meet every state regulation that private plans in the exchanges have to meet - both consumer advocates and private insurance companies are worried about this part (for different reasons, obviously).
As I read it this is basically the “private citizens will have the same coverage option that their Congressperson has” part of the ACA.
Ezra Klein has a good piece on this. Basically, it’s not the same at all, and it might actually be a detriment to health reform.
After reading Klein’s post, it looks good to me. What he considers a concern looks more like a feature to me. A way for state consumers to avoid stupid state mandates and just buy a plan that offers less.
So first you didn’t want the feds regulating health insurance because it’s a state matter, and now you don’t want states doing it either?