Premiums for a Public Health Plan: 30 Percent Cheaper?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Nice post, thanks for writing!

seolace of AL 3:39PM May 06, 2010

Why not have a Public Plan available for the low income? People making say $50000 or less or just come to an aggreement on a figure. Healthcare now is costing lower income people 20 to 25 percent of their income. It probably wouldn't be as good as a private policy held by the more well off, but would still pay for most of your basic needs plus it would have to cover the high end major medical for heart attacks, cancer etc. Have the premiums based on income and have everything so it would be easier to understand for everybody.

Charles Gudim of MN 12:01AM August 15, 2009

A Public Health Plan could be designed so as not to compete with private health plans. If it was only open to participants who could not get insurance from any private insurance plan. That way private insurance companies haven't lost any business that they didn't want any way. Of course those insured in a public plan may constitute a higher risk pool that may have to be subsidized to keep premiums reasonable and benefits adequate.

David B Winter of VA 6:10PM July 23, 2009

+1

soundtracks of AL 6:44AM July 17, 2009

lLChdO

Uixklesb of MO 2:57AM July 14, 2009

You will have a choice to stick with your private insurer or choose the public plan. There are some of us out here that are going without because we cannot afford a private insurer. With the way things are going today employers are cutting benefits left and right. So according to all of you saying it's "it's your fault you can't afford it, get a better job, that's not my problem" or any other selfish b.s., actually it will be everyone's problem. Hospitals have to treat everyone no matter their ability to pay, by law!! If there is going to be a law like that they are not going take away the subsidies for all the hospitals with all the non-payers on the books. You know what that means? That means people can pay more taxes, people can get worse credit (which inhibits their ability to get a better job to be able to get insurance and pay their medical bills, because employers check these things these days. Or the alternative is that someone who needs to see a Dr. doesn't because they don't want bill collectors harrassing them, which leads to something manageable now becoming worse, and then they can't work, pay taxes etc... and have to file for disability, which again comes from other people. So for goodness sakes why don't we just try to come together as a country and act like we kind of care about each other (remember post 9-11? how nice we were to one another?) and try to get us all in better health.

MB of KY 7:55AM June 15, 2009

My wife, a 58 year old early retiree wishes she could get coverage for anything close to $405 a month. The lowest premium we can find in Saratoga County, New York is now $832.58 a month.

Keith A. Hall of NY 8:50PM June 09, 2009

Medicare is a pulbic system that we don't want to duplicate in a poorly thought out attempt to "solve" the current issues with health care. People tend to forget that it was only a few years ago that people covered by Medicare did not have access to comprehensive prescription coverage. And most Medicare participants have to purchase one or two types of supplemental coverage to "complete" their coverage.
As for the supposed "low" administrative cost of Medicare, I would like to see those numbers in detail...you know what they say about figures and statistics.
The solution to health care in America is based with the people not wholly on the "system". We have become a society that does not take care of our health, waits until our illnesses are more serious and costly to treat, and thinks that there should be a pill and an immediate fix to every ache and pain. If people would eat better, exercise more, and take personal responsibility for their health and health care spending we would all be better off for it!

DB of VA 10:50AM April 28, 2009

If the government is going to model the new public health plan similar to medicare, we are in for more trouble. When the medical professionals have to wait longer to get paid less for their services, how many doctors will sign up for that plan. This type of plan is not working in Massachusets and they are getting further in debt. The government underestimates the costs to make it more appealing, and then ultimately will have to raise the rates or tax those of us who actually do pay taxes to cover their mistakes. Why doesn't the government fix the medicare system to make it work the way it should by covering those that need it and not those that abuse it; mandate health insurance to all others to help lower the cost (spreading the risk) and stay out of the private health care. They can't fix what they have now, I sure don't want the government controlling my health decisions too.

Marilyn Bowling of KS 12:13PM April 26, 2009

While there are many flaws to this new health care reform that everyone seems to support, let me ask the most most glaring issue: Who is going to pay for all of this?
It has been estimated that over the next decade that government run health care will cost roughly $1.5 trillion. That figure is staggering considering that the money needs to come from taxpayers. In case none of you realized it, the government uses our own money to sponsor these projects.
The only thing this water-downed health care system will give us is higher income, property, sales, energy, etc taxes.

Mark of IL 8:31AM April 16, 2009