Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Please don't be a patsy and fall for what Schumer labels the "level playing field" Pub Option

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:57 PM
Original message
Please don't be a patsy and fall for what Schumer labels the "level playing field" Pub Option
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 01:32 PM by Phoebe Loosinhouse
One of the major points of contention all along has been that private insurance WOULD NOT be able to compete with a public option, particularly one that operates "like" or is "modeled on" Medicare as many of the initial proposals stated.

A REAL public option would be one that is :
*created immediately (in other words not based on some phony "trigger")
*available to large numbers immediately (the uninsured and uninsurable would be a good start)
*Funded by taxpayers (there's a wide range of funding mechanisms available: surtax on the wealthiest, tax on employers, subsidies, etc.)
*Costs additionally held down through small administrative costs (a savings of anywhere from 20-26% from private admin costs)and through negotiation of rates with providers and drug companies (like Medicare*).This is one they hate the most. This is what would create the greatest savings and what the privates say put them at a disadvantage. It WILL mean that if they try to match the costs, they would inevitable have to erode their incredible, unconscionable profits that they derive now mainly through denials.
*Run by it's own board.

Chuck Schumer wants a "level playing field" public option. In other words, one that private insurers COULD compete with. The only way you would get that is if you stripped the public option of all the things that make it a good thing in the first place - like everything I've listed above. What you are left with is some non-profit entity that is called a public option but which essentially runs just like any other non-profit insurance whether it be public or private.

Edit - I don't mean to imply that the public option I described would be "free" or not have premiums paid by the consumer in addition to government funding.

<*oops! medicare DOESN'T negotiate Drug prices in Part D. That should have been our first tip-off as to where this was all heading>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Definitely not. If we are forced into a public option instead of Medicare for all,
I definitely want free market into play, not insurance company casino, where the odds favor the house. Screw them. If they can't compete, get out of the business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrToast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Are you serious?
That's what is in HR 3200 and is the only thing being proposed now.

That's why I've been saying the public option is a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's why I went ahead and defined what constitutes a REAL public option
I don't care WHERE a real public option comes from or who proposes it. I am just telling people they should not fall for just anything because someone tells them its called a Public Option.

Good rule of thumb - the less it looks like Medicare, the less it is a public option.

Oh that's right - we COULD just open up Medicare for anyone who needs/wants it and end this whole entire stupid, pointless discussion. And we could make SURE that we NEGOTIATE drug costs so that Medicare doesn't go broke in 7 to 10 years like scaremonger Schumer and Hatch were pushing today on Meet the Press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrToast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well, it's too late. What you're talking about isn't even on the table
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Absolutely - people are fighting for a public option but they don't know what it is
thats being called a public option by the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. And yet everyone on this board constantly says that EVERYTHING
is still possible because nothing is cast in concrete yet and those who are getting their panties in a twist are just jump-the-gun-doomers. They keep shouting "There is NO bill!"

From what I understand of the legislative process, I do still think that it is possible to get something worth having. Obama could stand up and submit his own piece of legislation that could be part of the process.

If Phil Gramm could "slip in" the Commodities Futures Modernization Act" that brought down our financial systems, we can do something good and put in the 2009 Medicare For All Act wherever we can.

You are saying game over at this point. I wonder how many agree with you. I don't like what I'm seeing, but I'm not willing to call the game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. New York a big health care business. Congress needs to stop concern about own states/stakes in cos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Yeah. Representatives must not represent their state
What sense would that make?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. On national crisis legislation like health care, supporting local BCBS is a no-no. You disagree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Isn't that what Obama is putting forth as well? One w/o unfair advantages
particularly in negotiations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. remember DU, any victory is no victory
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Meaning accomplishing nothing is victory bacause we voted down the imperfect
and voted the same as the republicans just from a different direction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. NOW YOU GET IT!!
If I have reached just one of you, it will all be worth it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Sorry - its always been my perspective but we're both in the minority it appears
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. Agree. Still, he was useful in countering Conrad's we don't have the votes. Now
Senators need to understand that they must pass a robust public option, which already has significant support in the Senate. Watered down is not an option.

House and HELP bills





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Have you actually read any of the bills? Or do you go by those bullet point
cheerleading sheets to gather your information on the different bills?

You do realize that the HELP bill doesn't have a public option that's like Medicare, right?

What th HELP bill has is a bunch of tiny regional "public options" that are administered by insurance companies. You knew that, right?

That's not what you mean by "robust," am I right? Or is tiny regional insurance company controlled "mini public options" your idea of "robust?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. More and more it looks like Senate Dems and the President just want...
...change in name only ~ with the insurance companies and big pharma being treated with kid gloves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
17. Please point out 50 senators that will vote for such a bill.
Put up or shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. You can shove your "put up or shut up".
The only thing that can change the direction things are going in is if Americans become informed and then angry and DEMAND the reform that they are due. We may have to lead our leaders.

You want me to roll over and be a nice quiet little Democrat? I won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I hear ya. There are about 30 to 50 Blue Dogs, and they say they won't vote for a PO?
So, I don't know where Schumer gets his numbers from. Still....if anyone would know about the votes, he would.

It could be that behind the scenes, the Blue Dogs have signaled that they'll vote for a watered down PO, if push comes to shove.

Schumer said that 60 people in the Senate would vote for a PO. Not just 50.

So...I don't know. But I DO know that they won't vote on it, if it's not in the bill to begin with!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC