Re: Harvard Pilgrims most recent report is 10.10% administrative expense, Medical expense 88.4% (reimbursement), Income 2.55% (profit)
I don't think my data came from Harvard Pilgrims. Probably Humana, or UHC.
If you're worried about Harvard Pilgrims, and their viability in the face of a public option, I would look at what you pay for health care, and the service you receive, versus what a public option would cost you, and the service they provide. If you like your current provider, then you keep them. If most of their clients feel the same way, they'll be fine. If they can't compete, then what usually happens in a capitalistic market is that they are replaced with someone who can.
Capitalism works when there are enough competitors offering choice, so that consumers can find the balance between what they pay for service, and the quality of service they receive. When costs are high and quality of service are low, then the American people are robbed of a healthy, competitive market. And when it comes to health care, it can be a matter of life and death.
I continue to believe that competition via a Public Option will benefit this industry, and there are currently models that exist that support this claim - i.e. FexEd/UPS vs. the USPS. So I will continue to support the Public Option as part of reform.
Re: The 21% reduction is the result of the calculation for 2010.
Sounds like a good thing to bring up with your representative. I don't disagree that there are legitimate arguments out there. This is probably one of them. I agree that they shouldn't be limiting reimbursements on legitimate costs of procedures, but I am too uninformed on this subject to know if that's the case.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
