standpoint than state-based, pubic plans.

I don't normally note typos but I think you might want to fix that one.

On the substance, it sounds promising. I a actually somewhat surprised that a weasel like Lieberman would sign on to it, which makes me more than a little suspicious, but on its face, it seems like a pretty decent compromise.

The plan has one significant flaw.

Everybody knows that OPM means "Other People's Money"!

Could Be Worse

Not the worst idea out there, by any means. Of course, there would be no abortion coverage, probably no birth control, and in general, women's health would get short shrift, maybe forever.

But the OPM plan could provide at least something to start with, like the original Social Security.

I just can't understand why the idea of simply expanding an existing system - Medicare - doesn't catch on. No re-inventing the wheel. No renegotiating rates. No new administrative structure.

This is just the latest clue that the battle over Health Care Reform is being lost. Mandatory coverage with Insurance companies making a profit on its captive audience will insure this will be a failed policy with the insurance companies writing the narrative.

Could this be worse than a mere failure to pass this in 2010? Democrats will be guilty of engaging in a policy who's future is damned from the inception with the bodies of thousands of poor and sick used as Republican shills.

Is passing 'anything' really a strategy? This is disheartening and a lose-lose outcome.

The fly in this ointment is all of those gored oxen: State insurance commissions. And, until the conflict between the Federalists and the States Rights camps can be settled there will be, well, conflict.

Maybe that's why Zandru's obvious solution-expand Medicare- is such a non-starter. . .

Rearranging the technical/bureaucratic deck chairs ain't gonna tell us whether or not the final Clown Car Senate proposed "health care reform bill' is a Titanic or not... we'll see.

But please don't be telling us to start paying attention to Lieberman, Lincoln and Snowe... shit, next thing it'll be Benny the cornhuskin' con-man

This strikes me as an idea that would work pretty well. . . under a Democratic administration.

But what about under Sarah Palin's OPM, or Jeb Bush's OPM?

This is just the latest clue that the battle over Health Care Reform is being lost. Mandatory coverage with Insurance companies making a profit on its captive audience will insure this will be a failed policy with the insurance companies writing the narrative.

I don't quite understand your criticism here Dean. These plans are non-profit but even more importantly they are strictly regulated which is really all a public option would be anyway. Can you flesh out what bothers you about this a bit more.

But what about under Sarah Palin's OPM, or Jeb Bush's OPM?

Don't know, but that is an unavoidable issue no matter what sort of public option is created, no? Any sort of reform we set up is going to require the involvement of a bureaucracy whose activities can be influenced by politics.

On first glance, this looks like a genuflect to keep as much as possible the old ways of doing things. Or hopefully the groundwork that allows reform down the road.

Like DAY implied @ 11:53, functioning solutions are not an option.
We need to introduce more contortions first.

Not for profit insurance=mutual insurance companies that do currently exist. State Farm Mutual Auto insurance being one and many more. While I don't usually source wiki for fact, this seems reasonable for an explanation and current list of mutual insurance companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

You might want to look at T.R Reid's description of what happened in Switzerland about a decade ago. The OPM plan might end up being something like that.

I call shenanigans.

"That makes it hard for them to achieve certain efficiencies of scale or maximize their leverage against"

Bullshit. California is such a huge market, do they have significantly cheaper insurance? I'm pretty sure not.

It's typical crap from corporations. "If only you remove some of the regulations we can lower our prices!"

You guys are actually buying that one? I've got a bridge in NY I'd be willing to sell you.

My problem with this is pushing medical treatment into the political landscape with a corporate monopoly controlling all aspects of the policy that they themselves are against and are actively trying to undermine. This is putting the wolves in to guard the sheep.

Disease doesn't simply take pause at every election. Treatment must be able to be counted on from diagnoses until cure (or death) - Treatment can not be held ransom to the idle needs of who is in power. We are turning from a strong rigidly defined program that will control costs and are now turning it into a corporate welfare system by the very people whose greed created this recursive nightmare.

This does not help anyone plan for the future - knowing that the treatment they engage in today will be completed tomorrow. The very basis of Health Care is in the totality of life measured in months and years - it can not be at the whims of political expediency.

I don't hear the insurance companies screaming "We have been hijacked by the federal government." This is a deceptive power play giving corporate monopoly's the power to invent the experience of what health care is to their own needs and profiting necessities.

How far we have come from the desire being a World Leader in accessible health care to how quickly this is becoming how to politically and economical profit from this nation's acute health care Armageddon.

Health care is an investment in Life that must be sustainable.

Why do I have the sinking feeling that this is merely a way to CALL it a public plan but it will be utterly worthless ?

We will be stuck with a government mandate to buy health insurance from for-profit private-sector health insurance corporations that will price gouge consumers and laugh all the way to the bank.

What concerns me about the OPM plan is its possible mismanagement. It could set the criteria for a nationwide plan so low that every state-wide plan could now be sold nationwide. This would have the effect of greatly increasing insurance company profits (with a larger area and a mandate) without changing anything else about the current system.

And as mentioned above, even if you trust the current administration not to mismanage this, can we trust the next one?

I think people need to read the post more carefully. The insurance companies included in the OPM blueprint would be non-profit, and thus free from many of the ailments (hah) that define modern health insuranace companies.

Referring to an earlier post: I live in California, and though the market is indeed quite large, it nonetheless is ultra-monopolized by two (maybe three) huge insurers. The idea behind an exchange would be to break those monopolies, by offering lower-cost alternatives. Non-profits would be ideal for this purpose, as there is no profit motive.

I agree the devil is in the details, but I think people need to think about this a little more carefully before shitting all over this idea's parade.

Especially given the fact that more ideal options are not politically feasible.

I don't hear the insurance companies screaming "We have been hijacked by the federal government."

Huh? That's all they've been screaming. Who do you think has been funding all of the "death panels" talk? That's not something that conservatives came up with all on their own -- they're very well-funded by the insurance companies to push that line to try and kill health insurance reform.

If the Senate and House bills are going to be such a huge bonanza for the health insurance companies, why are they fighting them tooth and nail? Shouldn't they be doing everything they can to smooth the path instead of trying to tank them?

@brent/BarrickArnold/Mnemosyne

Idiots on the Left as well as the Right. Once they've decided "OBAMA SOLD US OUT!", facts simply don't matter.

@ Mnemosyne: If the Senate and House bills are going to be such a huge bonanza for the health insurance companies, why are they fighting them tooth and nail?

It's possible that it's a Brer Rabbit "Don't throw me in the briar patch!" ploy. But like you I'm not convinced they'd feel a need to be cagey. That hasn't been their strategy in the past.

Barrick,

"The insurance companies included in the OPM blueprint would be non-profit"

We used to have a lot of non-profit health insurance companies in this country.

Where are they now ?

Mnemosyne,

"If the Senate and House bills are going to be such a huge bonanza for the health insurance companies, why are they fighting them tooth and nail?"

They aren't fighting the mandates. They LOVE them.

They're fighting the consumer protections in regards to preexisting conditions, recisions, policy caps, and community premiums.

They off state Governments for conversion...Here's a little NYS history with Empire Blue Cross
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_public_option_compromise_a.html

Damn! Wrong link
Bluecross NYS conversion
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/22/4/100.pdf

We should all have an Opium Plan! Discounted shipments straight from Afghanistan! Single-payer. Everything!