The Congressional Progressive Caucus released a statement on a public option

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5631





Principles for a Public Option -

The Congressional Progressive Caucus stands united behind President Obama’s call to provide high quality, affordability, and accessibility in healthcare choices for all Americans. The overwhelming majority of Congressional Progressive Caucus members prefer a single-payer approach. If a single-payer plan is not enacted, we agree with President Obama that there must be a robust public health insurance option like Medicare offered alongside the private plans. This public plan would provide a guarantee of coverage, affordable, high-quality and accessible healthcare, and lower costs – regardless of income, health status, race, employment, or gender. We oppose any conditions or triggers undermining and limiting the availability of the public option.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus calls for a robust public option that must:

· Enact concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.

· Consist of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.

· Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation

· Allow patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promote the medical home model, and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits.

· Have the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management, and good public health.

· Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.

· Establish or negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers, and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.

· Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.

· Ensure premiums must be priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

Most members still favor single payer, AFAIK.

.....the private plans is allowed, or if, as the president insists, all plans must have open enrollments, without exclusions for pre-existing conditions.


The Insurance Cabal is angling for a CRIPPLED public option, one in which the public plan is the only open enrollment plan. They want the public option to shield them from the financial burden of high risk patients, while they high-jack the others. But unless we break up their racket, by demanding a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, in which both public and private plans have open enrollment, the Insurance Cabal will transform "reform" into corporate welfare.


Because the private plans apply only 66% of expenses to actual health care, they will not be able to compete on a level playing field.

They will either have to become more efficient, or people will migrate voluntarily to a near-Single Payer system.

payer.

So why not just go for single payer. Politically the fight is the same. Except that 60% of the American people and 60% of doctors favor single payer. So we would start out ahead fighting for single payer than some version of the Massachusetts plan Its a public private hybred and it's failing miserably.

One huge advantage to single payer is it controls costs. It's simple for everyone. It's not job based. Why re-invent the wheel with something experimental when we could have what we already know works well?

....Congressional Progressive Caucus states that the majority of their members favor Single Payer, and yet they believe it is still important to help shape a public option as well.....so that we don't end up with a crippled public option, and let the insurance lobbyists shape and cripple a token "public option" while they are fighting for Single Payer.

This demonstrates how difficult it can be to determine how to most effectively expend our efforts.

I personally feel a Single Payer system would be best.

And, at the same time, I believe it is important that we participate in the shaping of the bills that are emerging in the Senate and House, for the same reasons expressed in the first part of the statement of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

on single payer, with the exception of Conyers, who chairs Judiciary. Not the committee that gets health care reform

if we had Pelosi or Committee Chairs (such as ways and means)pushing for single payer, then the chance that we might end up with something resembling a strong public option would be greatly enhanced. but if one starts at a strong public option, then what does one give up to compromise with? To trade and deal with?

I think the primary mis-step in this whole process is that it's been entirely a top down process of change, and any change we are likely to see will have to be compatible with large campaign contributions from the health care industrial complex.

At what point do progressive say, this is bullshit and no bill is preferable to a bill that has no cost controls (after all, cost is why people can't afford health care) and turns out to be just a massive subsidy to the insurance industry that won't be sustainable so our health care won't be sustainable?

The only way we can win is if people all over the country start occupying their Senators offices, calling 5 times a day and tying up the phone lines, occupying insurance company buildings, and demanding real change instead of this massive PR effort we now see.

Don't get me wrong, both Baucus and Kennedy have put a tremendous amount of time into coming up with bills that may or may not be able to be passed in the end. But it's our health care and as long as we allow the terms of change to be dictated from the top down instead of from the bottom up we will get only what the process allows.

Garbage in - garbage out so to speak.