AMERICAblog: Sen. Schumer: "There will be a public option in the final bill."
slideguy
· 4 months ago
This particular Californian has been unable to buy health insurance on the open market for the entire 30 years since I beat cancer. Pre-existing condition, and if it recurred, they wouldn't pay. But for the employer mandate I'd be dead.
Insurance companies are the problem, not the solution.
munjoyfan
· 4 months ago
One of the most important reasons for a public option is this: for profit insurance companies seek to do business where they can make enough money to satisfy their investors and Wall Street. This means they avoid small population states, and rural areas in all states, like the plague. Without a public option, there will be no competition at all in these rural areas. This is a major reason why insurance premiums in Maine, for example, are so much higher than nearby Massachusetts.
donnaz
· 4 months ago
Greetings from Maine....the home of Olympia Snowe. Ya know the moderate who loves her moderate million she's received from the health care barrons.
Anyway, on the local news the other day, the report came in that Sen. Snowe was working with Sen. Schumer on an option that could include a trigger and/or co-ops. Just another bi-partisan fracked up mess.
What a public option means to Schumer is not what a public option means to people who actually live in America.
I wrote to Olympia and suggested that the Senate quit having meetings about health care since it is now clear that they are hell bent on making it worse..
therepguy
· 4 months ago
Would someone tell me that keeping Senator Olympia Snowe from switch parties and giving up on the right wing fascist republicans... Sen Snowe is no fascist and shouldn't be seen in such company! She simple too good to be part that rabid party
Steve_in_CNJ
· 4 months ago
you can be sure the Insurance Mob and Pharma Mafia are already plotting to take this guy out.
An_American_Karol
· 4 months ago
The insurance industry is going to fight like a mother over any public option.. They want to cherry pick, but they don't want those without the funds for the massive cost of insurance or have preexisting health problems to have insurance.
What do you want to bet the red states will be the first in line for public health care? They are currently the biggest welfare states.
We shall see ... I won't believe it until I see it in the final bill and that bill is signed by Pres. Obama. Until then ...
leliorisen
· 4 months ago
Of course, what he isn't saying is that the public option that may result may be so watered-down and impotent, as to be rendered ineffective.
But that could just be my cynicism.
That's what happens when one comes to expect disappointment.
leliorisen
· 4 months ago
The google ad that cropped up when I linked in to this post is hilarious. It is from HARM "Healthy Americans Against Reforming Medicine!"
At first, I groaned, but the ad put a grin on my face.
In the 5 second ad, a group leader asks..."What's worse than death?"
A young woman replies, "Socialism."
The man yells out, "That's it! We'll call it 'socialism'."
Brilliant parody to undercut a GOP/Health Care Lobby talking point.
saml
· 4 months ago
salazar is a a--hole anti gay and thank goodness no longer a elected official from colorado.
Indigo
· 4 months ago
I'm concerned that the "public option" be open to everybody, not just another government boondogle nobody qualifies for if they own a home or a car or have a savings or checking account.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 4 months ago
i don't think you "qualify" for a public option. you opt for it.
Indigo
· 4 months ago
I hope so!
nicho
· 4 months ago
A "public option" will be a disaster.
If a so-called "public option" makes it pas the lobbyist gantlet, it will be designed to fail. The insurance companies will cherry pick the young and the healthy into private plans. The public option will become a dumping ground for the uninsurable, for those with pre-existing conditions, for the chronically ill, for anyone expected to have high medical costs. Without being able to spread it's pool over a wide range of people, it will become massively expensive and will collapse.
Then, whenever someone mentions single payer universal health care, the insurance industry will merely point to the "public option" and say, "See, we told you, it was a failure. It can't work."
This will set the cause of single-payer, universal, government run health insurance back at least a generation.
What we need is a health-care plan with a "private option." We need Medicare-type health care for everyone, regardless of means or medical condition. Then, those who can afford it and who want -- just as they do with Medicare -- can buy a private option supplemental plan that provides added benefits. This is the way Medicare works and it works just fine.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 4 months ago
a government insurance plan will certainly pick up a lot of "uninsurable". society is already paying for them indirectly (and inefficiently). it doesn't follow that government insurance will be undesirable insurance. and it doesn't follow that private insurance will be able to ignore the competition.
cash14
· 4 months ago
I dont believe Schumer, and I dont know why Obama never even let single payer representatives at the the table. Obama must MAKE IT HAPPEN. I have little faith after hearing Biden babble about misreading the economy. Sheila Bair was screaming at them since 2007.
leo
· 4 months ago
Actually the shocking thing about that segment on 'Face the Nation' was how fill-in host, John Dickerson, insisted on bringing up health care "cooperatives" as a substitute for a public option -- not once but twice.
He did so entirely on his own, entirely unrelated to what the Senators were saying. In fact, the 2nd time he did it, it was just after Schumer had said that 70% of the American public supported the public option.
But screw what 70% of the American public support. Apparently there's no story there. Dickerson wanted to know what Schumer thought about cooperatives!
I guess on the bright side, we now know there must be a lobby for cooperatives somewhere on planet earth since apparently they've got a spokesman in the form of fill-in host, John Dickerson.
.... At the urging of Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the senators [in the Finance Committee] are leaning toward setting aside a true public option in favor of establishing not-for-profit, member-owned health insurance cooperatives to compete with traditional insurance companies. Though the notion appeals to Republicans and some centrist Democrats, supporters of the public option do not view it as an acceptable compromise.
You better believe it's not an acceptable compromise. We haven't waited all this time just to get insurance companies 2.0.
HSR0601
· 4 months ago
The independently-funded healthcare policy research organization, The Commonwealth Fund, compared possible savings 'a health insurance exchange' could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer only a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all. Commonwealth's study found cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020, compared with projected trends for that period, would range from $3.0 trillion under a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance paying providers at Medicare rates in competition with private plans, to $2.0 trillion for a public plan paying providers at rates between Medicare and private plan rates, to $1.2 trillion in the private plan-only scenario. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012. 'Such an exchange' would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.
Under the Medicare-like plan along with private insurance, all U.S. residents would be required to obtain health coverage. The plan would establish a new government-sponsored health program for people younger than age 65 who are not eligible for Medicare. More than 40 million people would be expected to enroll in the program, according to Cathy Schoen of the Commonwealth Fund.
The government-operated insurance exchange would be similar to an existing program in Massachusetts and would allow people to compare coverage offered by private insurers and the new public program. In addition, the plan supports wide adoption of health information technology, better disease prevention efforts and 'changes to the insurance payment system' that promote efficiency. Health spending would continue to increase under the plan, but at a slower rate than current projections over the next 10 years. The Commonwealth Fund said the plan would reduce annual health care spending growth from a projected 6.7% to 5.5% and save a cumulative total of about '$3 trillion' by 2020, adding a national health insurance exchange program that includes a federally managed health insurance option could potentially save $1.8 trillion more than a plan consisting only of private plans. The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.
The proposal's advocates have argued that a government-sponsored insurance plan would offer the 46 million uninsured Americans an affordable alternative to costly private insurance, adding that It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to strealine, innovate and compete.
Thank You !
HSR0601
· 4 months ago
People are so worried about losing their job, coverage, denial of treatment, which seems to increase bank deposit latetly. That means stimulus funding mainly goes toward bank deposit for a rainy day increasing jobless rate. It proves again that a healthy society yields better productivity, prosperity. It is time to 'Change' the notion of the public health as a fundamental human right and install 'a safety system for all' like all of the other industrialized nations, I think.
All Comments
Insurance companies are the problem, not the solution.
Anyway, on the local news the other day, the report came in that Sen. Snowe was working with Sen. Schumer on an option that could include a trigger and/or co-ops. Just another bi-partisan fracked up mess.
What a public option means to Schumer is not what a public option means to people who actually live in America.
I wrote to Olympia and suggested that the Senate quit having meetings about health care since it is now clear that they are hell bent on making it worse..
They want to cherry pick, but they don't want those without the funds for the massive cost of insurance or have preexisting health problems to have insurance.
What do you want to bet the red states will be the first in line for public health care? They are currently the biggest welfare states.
now this problem surfaces
PLEASE HELP
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6125
But that could just be my cynicism.
That's what happens when one comes to expect disappointment.
At first, I groaned, but the ad put a grin on my face.
In the 5 second ad, a group leader asks..."What's worse than death?"
A young woman replies, "Socialism."
The man yells out, "That's it! We'll call it 'socialism'."
Brilliant parody to undercut a GOP/Health Care Lobby talking point.
If a so-called "public option" makes it pas the lobbyist gantlet, it will be designed to fail. The insurance companies will cherry pick the young and the healthy into private plans. The public option will become a dumping ground for the uninsurable, for those with pre-existing conditions, for the chronically ill, for anyone expected to have high medical costs. Without being able to spread it's pool over a wide range of people, it will become massively expensive and will collapse.
Then, whenever someone mentions single payer universal health care, the insurance industry will merely point to the "public option" and say, "See, we told you, it was a failure. It can't work."
This will set the cause of single-payer, universal, government run health insurance back at least a generation.
What we need is a health-care plan with a "private option." We need Medicare-type health care for everyone, regardless of means or medical condition. Then, those who can afford it and who want -- just as they do with Medicare -- can buy a private option supplemental plan that provides added benefits. This is the way Medicare works and it works just fine.
He did so entirely on his own, entirely unrelated to what the Senators were saying. In fact, the 2nd time he did it, it was just after Schumer had said that 70% of the American public supported the public option.
But screw what 70% of the American public support. Apparently there's no story there. Dickerson wanted to know what Schumer thought about cooperatives!
I guess on the bright side, we now know there must be a lobby for cooperatives somewhere on planet earth since apparently they've got a spokesman in the form of fill-in host, John Dickerson.
You better believe it's not an acceptable compromise. We haven't waited all this time just to get insurance companies 2.0.
Commonwealth's study found cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020, compared with projected trends for that period, would range from $3.0 trillion under a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance paying providers at Medicare rates in competition with private plans, to $2.0 trillion for a public plan paying providers at rates between Medicare and private plan rates, to $1.2 trillion in the private plan-only scenario. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012. 'Such an exchange' would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.
Under the Medicare-like plan along with private insurance, all U.S. residents would be required to obtain health coverage. The plan would establish a new government-sponsored health program for people younger than age 65 who are not eligible for Medicare. More than 40 million people would be expected to enroll in the program, according to Cathy Schoen of the Commonwealth Fund.
The government-operated insurance exchange would be similar to an existing program in Massachusetts and would allow people to compare coverage offered by private insurers and the new public program. In addition, the plan supports wide adoption of health information technology, better disease prevention efforts and 'changes to the insurance payment system' that promote efficiency. Health spending would continue to increase under the plan, but at a slower rate than current projections over the next 10 years. The Commonwealth Fund said the plan would reduce annual health care spending growth from a projected 6.7% to 5.5% and save a cumulative total of about '$3 trillion' by 2020, adding a national health insurance exchange program that includes a federally managed health insurance option could potentially save $1.8 trillion more than a plan consisting only of private plans.
The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.
The proposal's advocates have argued that a government-sponsored insurance plan would offer the 46 million uninsured Americans an affordable alternative to costly private insurance, adding that It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to strealine, innovate and compete.
Thank You !
It is time to 'Change' the notion of the public health as a fundamental human right and install 'a safety system for all' like all of the other industrialized nations, I think.