Beware of Public Option Smokescreens
by jhwygirl
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under the Clinton Administration has a blog, succinctly titled Robert Reich’s Blog. With that resume, he isn’t your stereotypical blogger, and well worthy of paying careful attention.
In his most recent piece, titled How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do, he provides first hand information on what the public option means for Republicans, moderates and those opposed to national health care reform.
Disappointing stuff to read, I have to say. Very disappointing. If you are advocating for single-payer, or even willing to accept a strong public option – and especially if you are from Montana – you will find this post not only disappointing, but disturbing, to say the least:
So they’re pulling out all the stops — pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called “moderate” Republicans who say they’re in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they’ve been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn’t shown his cards but staffers tell me he’s more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they’re killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy’s health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.)
A few days ago I came across this article in Bloomberg, titled Kennedy Health Plan Would Include Public Insurance. It was paragraph 7 that drew my ire:
Kennedy’s proposals might go further than another plan being drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, has said he is weighing whether to include a government-run program in a measure and, if so, how it might be structured to attract Republican votes and industry support.
Whaaaa?
I had to check the date on that article. “Is this thing a month old, or what?,” I thought. But nope – that was written just two Fridays ago. I let that one ride, thinking, possibly, that the article was overly-biased to its corporate-leaning audience…but with Reich’s post this past Friday, I’m not thinking that any more.
Baucus got away with Medicare Part D back in (what was it?) 2005. With little repercussions and plenty of kudos from the Republican side, looks like all he took out of it was encouragement. Which is rearing its ugly head once again.
Jon Tester campaigned for his senate seat mentioning the Medicare Part D fiasco at nearly every campaign stop he made. At some point, Senator Jon Tester needs to speak out and talk about meaningful public option, and he needs to let both Montanans and Baucus know that is where he stands, and that a strong and viable public option is what he expects.
Montanans want to know that we’re getting some representation over there in Washington, and it is becoming increasingly clear that Baucus is not only ignoring us, he’s obfuscating a public option plan.
From the looks of things, he’s trying to pull a Medicare Part D type ‘reform’ – in name only – again.
-
1
Pingback on Jul 5th, 2009 at 5:20 am
[...] Figure this as Part II of a previous post, titled Beware of Public Option Smokescreens. [...]
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… Duganz on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… coppertop on Rape is not “knucklehead… Buzz Feedback on Rape is not “knucklehead… lizard19 on Rape is not “knucklehead…
June 7, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I’d like to keep the options I’ve got now, so we are going to disagree wholeheartedly.
June 7, 2009 at 7:34 pm
You would with public option, goof. That’s different than single-payer.
June 7, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Yes, I think I understand what having an option means. I’m glad my Senator is working to help me retain mine.
June 9, 2009 at 12:39 am
I’m sure you’ll appreciate the subsidies you’ll receive by him doing so.
June 8, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Knowing more than just a tiny amount about the options that we have available to us, I would suggest that you’re engaging in bad math. If we currently have, say, 4 options offered, and someone offers 1 more, that isn’t taking any option away from you. It’s giving you one more. That kind of public option is exactly what supporters are calling for and the insurance industry seeks to avoid. Human has no problem ‘competing’ with BC/BS or Allegiance, because prices remain non-negotiable and standards of coverage are industry accepted. They share the pool of suckers, if you will. A good public option would be able to compete, through price negotiation and elimination of the most expensive outliers, most of whom aren’t covered, that sap your taxes as opposed to raising your premiums. No competition = higher premiums and higher taxes. Public option = equilibrium and long term benefit to total health care outlay for the individual. That’s not tough calculus.
Many of the folk in this debate choose precisely the imposition of coverage you (and I) fear. They want single payer and they want it now. You are correct in opposing (my opinion) that kind of imposition of one option only. For myself, I do too. It is non-competitive and as such can be gamed, both by the opposition of any health care reform, and by those who will figure out how to profit from a brand new governmental dictate. Single payer is a political non-starter. It will not get off the ground precisely because Americans will oppose mandate over competition every single time.
What Baucus is working to help you with isn’t competition or retention of options. He’s simply trying to assist those who already offer you the same old thing, just in a different wrapper, and they call that “choices”. No, it’s really not.
June 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm
“Human has no problem” s/b “Humana has no problem”
June 8, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Thanks for a good explanation.
June 7, 2009 at 7:22 pm
so if i understand you correctly then goof- you would prefer that baucus deny us any decent public option at all because if max allowed it, it would drive your private insurers out of business because everyone would want public option.
so max must deny public option to keep your options alive. is that about it?
June 7, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I wonder if the public option should work with a certain amount of profit built in – and have that double back into the program to cover uninsureds? Have the same thing built into private health insurance. A surcharge on all health insurance to cover uninsureds.
Much the same as I pay a portion of my auto insurance policy to cover uninsured drivers.
(And I’ll stop there on that subject, solely because the topic at hand is health insurance, not auto insurance….)
The millions without health care – the 10′s of thousands with health care that still aren’t adequately covered – are a drain on all. Even those with “good” policies. Health care costs are rising exponentially, and have been for the last 2 decades. I’m being silently taxed right now on my policy to cover uninsureds. Uninsured that don’t seek any care at all until it is emergency room level.
Something has to give.
June 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Your point is well-taken, J-girl. But, do we have to link health care costs directly with health care insurance reform?
I’m beginning to wonder if that link isn’t a Republican screen to bog down the process. We saw the major players in health care proudly proclaim a month back that they were cutting billions from the costs of health care. Why did they chose now to make that proclamation?
Likewise, I agree with you that there isn’t necessarily a link between public option and killing off the private option. In most other countries where basic health care is considered a citizen’s right, you are still able to buy private health insurance. That private health insurance allows you to choose your own doctor, jump the line, and obtain whatever optional treatments you consider necessary. You want it, you pay for it. Tell me, again, why that wouldn’t work here – in the largest marketplace in the world?
June 7, 2009 at 7:34 pm
yeah sure whatever you say
June 8, 2009 at 1:07 pm
BTW, above comment in answer to problembear.
June 8, 2009 at 11:26 am
What is the difference between Romney Care, which is a private /public multi-payer system with a public option passed in a bi-partisan fashion in Massachusetts with insurance company’s involvement when Mitt was governor, and the private/public multi-payer system with a public option that Democrats want to pass in a bi-partisan fashion with insurance company involvement?
Shouldn’t we call it Romney Care II so we aren’t accused of plagiarism?
By the way, I’ve read that Romney Care I is falling apart, it’s way too expensive so many people are losing their benefits as insurance companies do very well, thank you.
The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems.
July 5, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Romney care is the equivalent of Max Care – since it does not change the way insurers do business other than subsidizing them, of course it’s too expensive.
Better models, if you want to stick with the private insurance model, are available in Switzerland and the Netherlands, where people buy private policies, but insurers are regulated as utilities providing a public good. They are not allowed to turn people down for coverage nor ‘rescind’ them afterwards. In return for this, they are given a subsidy.
But before we subsidize them, bring them under control. Right now, they are (literally) killing us.
June 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Correction: MA doesn’t not have a public pool. But they do have a lot of problems with Romney Care
June 8, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Correction: I was doing some reading and i found out that Massechusetts does not have a public pool
June 24, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Let us pray that whatever plan is finalized is not a government-run system like Medicare. The fraud, waste and inefficiency of Medicare should teach us that the government does not give us the best bang for the buck in terms of human services. For an excellent discussion of why Medicare is not a useful template for universal health care in this country, see: “Medicare doesn’t solve the problem … it IS the problem,” http://electriccityweblog.com/
June 24, 2009 at 12:52 pm
And what does the fraud, waste and inefficiency of the private health insurance industry tell you? That it is not a useful template for universal health care?
Enlighten me as to a better way of getting to universal health care without resorting to either…
June 24, 2009 at 3:02 pm
read this
July 5, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Medicare is not corrupt, but is being bilked to the tune of $100-$500 billion per year by doctors, HMO’s and hospitals. Why they don’t clamp down is a mystery, but I suspect it has to do with corporate power in Washington.