Is Wyden's Free Choice Proposal + "Public Option" == Sorta Optional "Medicare for All"

Oregone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-10-09 02:40 PM
Original message

Is Wyden's Free Choice Proposal + "Public Option" == Sorta Optional "Medicare for All"

Edited on Thu Sep-10-09 02:46 PM by Oregone

Empower EVERY American to choose the quality, affordable health plan that works best for them.

Health reform should give ALL Americans choices. Americans who are happy with their current
coverage should be able to choose to keep it just as Americans who are unhappy with their current
coverage should be able to reject it and choose a better plan. The Free Choice Proposal shows that it is
possible to guarantee these choices � not just for some Americans � but for ALL Americans in a way
that strengthens the employer-based health care system.

.....

Under this proposal:

1) Employers that offer group health coverage must offer the equivalent of a minimum benefit plan,
contribute at least 70% of the premium, and offer at least one other health plan of greater actuarial value;
or

2) Employers that do not offer the choice of a low cost option must offer workers a voucher worth at least
70% of the average of the three lowest cost plans in the exchange; or

3) With an adequate transition, employers can take their entire group to the exchange where they would
receive a group discount so long as they provide at least 70% of the cost of average of the three lowest
cost plans in the exchange; or

4) Employers that do not offer health insurance choices, a voucher, or go to the exchange, would have to pay
a �fair share�

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/free_choice_proposal.pdf

--------

The key component of the Free Choice Act is called "cash-out." Under the Free Choice Act, if I decide that I don't like any of the health-care coverage options being offered by my employer and would prefer to choose from the many options being offered on the Health Insurance Exchange, my employer has to give me a voucher that covers 65 to 70 percent of the cost of the lowest level of exchange plan. (That is the average portion that an employer pays of his employee's health insurance premiums.) I can take that voucher and, along with whatever money I want to throw in, choose a plan on the exchange.

--------

Ive often criticized the "public option" for being fire-walled and not accessible for most Americans. In other words, it simply was not an option. It came at no surprise that the CBO score some bills with it as only covering 10-12 million people in a decade. Essentially, it covers those without insurance--a traditionally unprofitable segment of society to cover. There are too few, and they are not too desirable to cause the private insurers to lower their rates and clamor to cover them. Only opening up the "public option" to everyone will cause real competition, as well as control costs for those covered (due to negotiated rates and low overhead).

So here we have it. An amendment that would allow everyone (if the "public option" exists) to enroll in a low overhead, public, not-for-profit ("Medicare-like") insurance plan. Further...the plan would be mostly paid for by the employer (except for those below the threshold that are getting subsidies). So essentially, it would create a universal public insurance option that is not regressively funded.

Well, this could be it. Really. The true path to single-payer (if the public option is included). How could any massively for-profits really compete? . Otherwise, its just good policy to give everyone access to the exchange (regulated subsidized private insurers).

So, if there is any amendment to get fired-up about (other than Kucinich's state single-payer and Weiner's HR 676 replacement), this is it. I basically see no downsides immediately, and it would drastically improve most proposals we've all seen.