2 ms·

None that I'm aware of. My guess would be that this is because if you do it poorly, it doesn't help a damn thing, and if you do it well, it's just single-payer

None that I'm aware of. My guess would be that this is because if you do it poorly, it doesn't help a damn thing, and if you do it well, it's just single-payer with extra steps. This is because to do it right you'd effectively have to dictate that ~all providers take the public option insurance, and at that point you may as well do single-payer. Otherwise, there's no reason to expect a public option, as in just another insurer that happens to be government-run, would be able to compete when providers can just refuse to take them unless they raise compensation to roughly match everyone else. At best it would apply only light downward pressure on prices. There are some systems that have private (though, perhaps, non-profit only) insurance and a public insurer as a kind of public option, as an insurer of last resort, but they place all kinds of restrictions on this, like standardizing basic-coverage plans and dictating that all insurers offer them, mandating that providers all accept these plans (including the government one) and so on, and often still having other price controls on top of it.

Closi 5y ago
What about the UK? Free at the point of service healthcare with relatively high quality and low cost private options eg via Bupa (when compared to the prices in the USA)
- handrous 5y ago
  That's a private system on top of a universal public one, no? It's not an option as in "instead of private insurance, you can do this, but you can also forego this and use only private insurance". You have access to public care, period, and can pay for extra on top from the private system. Right? [EDIT] To clarify, "public option" proposals in the US involve a government-run insurer operating on the same market as private insurers, not any kind of universal or default coverage. There are lots of systems with private components or additions or even that are primarily private (with heavy regulation and price controls, typically) but I'm not aware of any that do what US public option proposals have called for. US public option proposals that have made it as far as bills have also come with restrictions, like only allowing those without employer-sponsored insurance options available to choose to pay for a public option, which would almost certainly have done weird and undesirable things to the risk pools for the public plans.

Closi 5y ago

What about the UK? Free at the point of service healthcare with relatively high quality and low cost private options eg via Bupa (when compared to the prices in the USA)

handrous 5y ago
That's a private system on top of a universal public one, no? It's not an option as in "instead of private insurance, you can do this, but you can also forego this and use only private insurance". You have access to public care, period, and can pay for extra on top from the private system. Right? [EDIT] To clarify, "public option" proposals in the US involve a government-run insurer operating on the same market as private insurers, not any kind of universal or default coverage. There are lots of systems with private components or additions or even that are primarily private (with heavy regulation and price controls, typically) but I'm not aware of any that do what US public option proposals have called for. US public option proposals that have made it as far as bills have also come with restrictions, like only allowing those without employer-sponsored insurance options available to choose to pay for a public option, which would almost certainly have done weird and undesirable things to the risk pools for the public plans.