Does anyone know...

[Yes We Did]

Okay... the PO is only open to those without insurance... which covers what... 20-40 million depending on which set of numbers you are looking at.

So... if you lose your insurance through your employer, are you then elidgible for the public option?

If so, then it would potentially be universal coverage, as employers may see the money they can save and start canceling their insurance coverage and opting to contribute to the public plan.

Or... is there some magic cut off number I am unaware of?

[whoneedstickets]

1. I don't know the detail, but your logic is correct...

..and has been identified by the R-wing as the main reason to oppose a PO. Once in place, employers will have an incentive to move people to it (and off their plans). This will both grow public reliance on the plan and create a political incentive to improve the plan.

Public health insurance creates a strong personal-government relationship that facilitates a social-democratic outlook on public services. This is the GOP's biggest fear and the reason that a PO, any PO must be in this bill.

[Yes We Did]

2. Well... color me optimistic.

Isn't that what we want? Personally, I hope it drives the for-profit insurance business out of business completely.

Some things don't need to be made a profit on.

[Clio the Leo]

3. I must be missing something as well.....

.... because that's exactly what everything I've ever read is arguing. Well, maybe not the public plan but businesses would be able to buy into what will presumably be a more competitively priced exchange. The PO would be a part of that exchange meaning private insurers would have to offer simmilarly priced plans in order to compete.

I dont always agree with Ezra Klein, but he presents one of the easier to understand descriptions of the exchange that I have seen....

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_most_important_part_of_hea.html

[Yes We Did]

4. thanks. n/t