Prognosis improves for public insurance - MOMENTUM SHIFT IS DRAMATIC

[TomCADem]

Source: Washington Post

Democratic leaders in the Senate and House have concluded that a government-run insurance plan is the cheapest way to expand health coverage, and they sought Friday to rally support for the idea, prospects for which have gone in a few short weeks from bleak to bright.

The shift in momentum is so dramatic that many lawmakers now predict that President Obama will sign a final bill that includes some form of government-sponsored insurance for people who do not receive coverage through the workplace. Even Democrats with strong reservations about expanding government's role in the health-care system say they are reconsidering the approach in hopes of making low-cost plans broadly available.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sought support Friday for expansive versions of the public option as they prepared to send reform legislation to the Senate and House floors. Their goal is to pass bills with similar versions of the public insurance option so that final talks between the two chambers can focus on other issues that could prove more difficult to resolve.

* * *

The public-option debate is frustrating some Democrats, who have come to believe that a government-run plan is neither as radical as its conservative critics have portrayed, nor as important as its liberal supporters contend. Any public plan is likely to have a relatively narrow scope, as it would be offered only to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102304081.html?hpid=topnews

[msongs]

1. "some form", "narrow scope"....haven't those DC hacks heard of Medicare? nt

[No Elephants]

17. They no doubt have, but they are not saying that the bill that will be signed will

actually be like medicare for all.

On Countdown, Olberman was talking about the re-branding of the public option as medicare for everybody and claimed credit for the phrase (although I think that was overreaching some, given Governor/Dr. Dean especially). One of his guests was a Congressman who spoke of the re-branding, REGARDLESS of what form the final bill actually took.

So, referring to "medicare for all" is a marketing technique, not necessarily accurate. Talking about the form and scope of the public option, if any, that may be in the final bill is still very relevant, no matter what selling techniques are being used.

[seafan]

28. If they are now calling this "Medicare For Everybody", it better damn well be Medicare for everybody

Not just for 5% of the people. No holes in coverage. No 4-year delay.



It is up to all of us to DEMAND LOUDLY and DEMAND UNRELENTINGLY that we want Medicare For All, comprehensive and effective in 2010.


This reminds me of the TV commercial about the little girl who was asked by a smarmy dude if she wanted a pony; she said yes, and he gave her a toy pony. Her little friend was asked if she wanted a pony; she said yes, and she was given a real pony. The first little girl said to the slick fellow, "You didn't tell me I could have a REAL pony." He replied, "You didn't ask."


This is the kind of game playing that's going on right now over our health care.


We have to coordinate this attack on all fronts to get what we want. Call, write, fax, visit congresspeople, demonstrate, strike. Whatever it takes.


Let's not forget, there is a nationwide work strike being called for on October 29.


All I can say is, there are people who are suppressing this from getting out.



Keith, Ed and Rachel? Front and center, please. We need you.

[tabatha]

2. I suspected as much.

[seafan]

3. Three criteria MUST be met for the government-run health plan to be effective:

1. It must be open to anyone who desires it (and NOT just 5% of the population).

2. It must be comprehensive in coverage---medical, dental, eye, mental health, rehabilitation, prescriptions (and NOT fragmented coverage).

3. It must take effect in 2010 (and NOT 2013).



Anything other than this will be a watered-down, piecemeal, time-delayed joke. And when people figure out that they've been *had* yet again by politicians and their corporate masters, there is going to be a volcanic eruption from the populace that will melt their shiny gold cuff links.



Prognosis improves for public insurance, October 24, 2009

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. And affordable...

I do not have a clear grasp on the "government run" part of the idea.
government ( that means US) pays the insurance companies?
If so, what controls over insurance companies would there be?

or

Government subsidizes SOME insurance premiums while most of are forced to buy insurance?

MANDATORY INSURANCE is NOT "health care".
It is INSURANCE care.

[seafan]

6. Government would pay the bill submitted by the health care provider

...is how I understand it. No middle man. That is why the insurance companies are apoplectic over this camel's nose in their tent.


This scenario would create very good competition for what the health insurance monopoly tries to get away with.

[MrModerate]

8. This reply somewhat undercuts your strict position in Reply #3 . . .

A nose in the tent may be unsatisfactory compared to where many of us want to get to -- single payer with insurance company share shrunk to the provision of "extras" -- but it's not an insignificant outcome.

I'm hoping for more but will still regard less (especially if it looks like it'll work) as a win. Remember, Medicare took several legislative iterations to get working and still needs some retooling even today.

[seafan]

16. What I described is single payer Medicare For All.

The "nose in the tent" analogy I intended to make is how the insurance companies see any encroachment on their monopolistic treasure-heap. They don't know how many people would bolt out of their gamed system, but are certain it will be a large proportion, once the people embrace Medicare For All.


Just think... comprehensive health care, available to anyone who would like to have it, and have it take effect by next year. Sounds like just what we need.


Flush the insurance companies when it comes to our health care.

[No Elephants]

21. I would love medicare for all, but don't expect it. Please see Reply #17.

Not even the Progressive Caucus talks about HR 676 anymore and no one has even bothered to get the CBO to review it, even though it's been kicking around since 2003.

[seafan]

30. Yes, 676 is being scored. See this thread from Oct 20.

Good News: As I Type This, CBO is Scoring Rep. Weiner's Single Payer Amendment

More info here.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. Thank you for that clarification. Sounds good.

If the government was willing to at long last also go after fraud
in the system, it would save a bundle.
I hope to see crackdowns on Medicare fraud some day.

[No Elephants]

20. None of us knows the details yet. There is no one bill yet. I don't think we'll begin

to know until we see a compromise bill, meaning compromise between the House bills and the Senate bills. And, as far as I know, even that is subject to amendments before passage. As far as its being "medicare for all," please see my Reply #17. Finally, even if they really were contemplating "medicare for all" (very unlikely, IMO) affordability will depend upon premiums and deductibles and how they are calculated; e.g., sliding scale.

[bkkyosemite]

7. YOU are so RIGHT ON.....

:fistbump:

[No Elephants]

18. Although it is implied in your effective date, I would specify "and no

[AllyCat]

4. Only for those who don't have employer insurance? Argh!!!!

Medicare for all!!!!

[No Elephants]

22. Agree 100% as to what would be best, but please see Reply ##s 17 and 21.

Don't let the "re-branding" fool you. If you want single payer, make a lot of noise.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. I know... how does that foster competition?

When only those who don't have access to the overpriced and underperforming stuff are allowed to buy into the gov't plan - what does that do?

How can these Congresspeople not see this?

[drm604]

9. Can employers choose the public option for their employees? n/t

[No Elephants]

26. Until we at least have a compromise bill, we have no way of knowing anything.

But, don't wait to make noise about what you want. This is the time, IMO, not later.

[drm604]

29. It would make a big difference if they could.

If employers could choose it then it could be real competition for insurance companies. If they can't then it wouldn't be and, in my opinion, won't serve it's purpose.

[Kablooie]

11. I'll bet a lot of lobbyists have hard to remove stains growing in their underwear about now.

Obama said early on that he will work in good faith for mutual solutions with people unless they become dishonest or greedy.
Then he would take off the gloves and come down hard.

Washington may begin to realize that he weren't just whistling Dixie.

[thelayoff]

12. Gotta do it... Regardless...

We have to do it, I don't think we have any alternatives to a gov run healthcare (hc) program. With the current system our cost of HC is just way to high which in turn renders us even less competative. What we have playing out right now is a hc lobby going head-to-head with pretty much everyone else and they (hc) will lose. Maybe not this November, maybe not next spring but in a very short future we'll see a gov sponsored plan being introduced - we may like it or not but it will happen.

Cheers,

IK

[defendandprotect]

13. Don't relax, frolks . .. in fact, we should be out demonstrating: MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!

[No Elephants]

23. +1

[mother earth]

14. Medicare for all. Why not base the public option on Medicare?

We know how it works, and that it works.

[No Elephants]

25. The vulnerability there is the huge deficit Medicare has generated. Also, that it has turned out to

cost much, much more than was calculated before it got passed.

One major problem, IMO, with both OASDI and Medicare is that neither takes your other income or assets into account. On the other hand, the welfare like bureaucracy doing so would require would in itself be costly. And, of course, that raises the entire issue of the alleged trust fund, raiding the trust fund, etc.

But, the money has to oome from somewhere. And Obama has been demanding something that is deficit neutral. Unless they do an awful lot of legislating and amending of existing laws and regulations, medicare for all will NOT be deficit neutral. And, realisticaly, they are out of time for major overhauls. Basically, they're all always running for re-election, the House especially but next year really is a mid-term election year, so controversial stuff is going to fade away more and more until November. And no one knows if Democrats will lose seats, rendering them even less able to pass anything major than they now seem.

So, it probably needs to get done this year and down and dirty, rather than major overhaul. So, deficit neutrality is going to be a stumbling block, especially since no one seems to want to have the Congressional Budget Office even look at HR 676 (the closest thing to true "medicare for all").

[drm604]

31. If younger people can buy into medicare wouldn't that help the budget problems?

If you have large numbers of healthy people paying monthly premiums into Medicare that should help with the budget problems. It might even solve them.

[Overseas]

33. Public expenses vs private expenses a.k.a. early death and bankruptcy

No, the problem isn't "the huge deficit that Medicare has created." It is a far more efficient way to handle health insurance than our for-profit system. (see below) The problem seems to be that our legislators have been handsomely rewarded to pretend that national health security is just fine as a private privilege for the wealthy and large companies, rather than a basic human right. As a privilege, the costs in human suffering have been privatized-- 44,000 die early, millions are driven into bankruptcy every year, etc.-- so then we don't have to acknowledge them as a country planning its national budget. We just look at that "terribly expensive" Medicare and what a drain it is on our budget-- rather than looking at its efficiencies vs. the for-profit system.

We have never asked our citizens how they feel about the USA spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined, while not giving its citizens the right to health security that most other modern nations have. The "real problem" just could be the huge deficits that the military industrial complex has created. Citizens of countries with national health insurance appreciate their taxes going to something that helps them in health emergencies and protects them from the millions of bankruptcies that privatized health insurance have caused in our country.

The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented.

The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.

It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save over $300 billion annually.

More answers to single payer FAQ's at http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#aging_population

[Fearless]

15. Somebody stopped ignoring the polling??

:party:

[eridani]

19. Public insurance postponed until 2013 is a political disaster

If we can't get Medicare for All, let's get Medicare for More People At Least.

[No Elephants]

27. Make noise about what you actually want. Contact the White House, your Senators and your

Rep. If there is a demonstration in your area, join it. Don't let up now and don't wait until their ideas get embodied in a compromise bill.


Even if you think it won't do any goo, try. We owe it not only to ourselves, but to each other, to succeeding generations and to our country. Also to those who have already died for lack of affordable health care. (RIP, Dave) and to the 122, on average, who will die every day until affordable health care is avaiable to all.

This is the most important legislation since 1964. Please don't be silent or resigned or apathetic.

[seafan]

32. kick n/t