Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama: ‘I Continue To Believe That A Robust Public Option Would Be The Best Way To Go’ (July 20)

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
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:32 AM
Original message
Obama: ‘I Continue To Believe That A Robust Public Option Would Be The Best Way To Go’ (July 20)
Obama: ‘I Continue To Believe That A Robust Public Option Would Be The Best Way To Go’

I’m still working out the details of a co-op approach. I will tell you that there are some instances of co-ops being set up and just having a very difficult time getting off the ground because they don’t have the scale and the resources to be able to compete effectively. What I’ve asked my health care team to do is to look at what evidence we have that this could provide the kind of competition that drives or helps to promote insurance reform and helps to include quality and drive down cost. If I can see some some evidence that this could work, then I’d be happy to consider it. But I will tell you that, as I’ve been very clear about before, I continue to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.

Listen:

<...>


From the same link:

Both the Kennedy health bill and the Tri Committee bill in the House give Americans the choice of a public option. The Senate Finance Committee, which is expecting to produce a bill by Thursday, is still considering Conrad’s co-op compromise. Under Conrad’s proposal an insurance co-op would be “owned and operated for the benefit of its members — individuals and businesses with fewer than 10 employees” and would operate “at the state level or regionally” to “provide a non-profit, non-government, consumer-driven coverage option in every state to deliver maximum value for consumers.”

But as a Commonwealth brief points out, most co-ops have difficulty fulfilling their goal of offering small employers and individuals a choice in health plans and reducing costs. That’s because to attract a wide array of health plans and exert purchasing power (bargain on behalf of its members), co-ops must enroll large numbers of employers. But without the ability to “offer substantial choice among well-known health plans, it is difficult for co-ops to attract enrolless, who are drawn to co-ops in part because of their ability to offer such choice.” In other words, co-ops would lack the clout of Medicare — which can drive system innovations and payment reforms — Medicare-like administrative efficiencies, or the ability to use Medicare leverage to ensure a large provider network that accepts Medicare prices. A new cooperative health care plan won’t be able to lower costs and drive private insurers to aggressively bargain with providers (and pass the saving on to its beneficiaries in the form of lower premiums).

As former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) explained, “the co-ops are too small to compete with the big, private insurance companies. They will kill the co-ops completely by undercutting them, using their financial clout to do it…This is a compromise designed to deal with problems in the Senate. But it doesn’t deal with problems in America.”



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. We'll see what's in the final bill. I am not optimistic about the Democrats showing some spine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Fight for something and quit being a defeat-o-crat please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I am fighting for something. I am simply being honest that I think it will be for naught.
Democrats have a history of wimping out when the going gets tough, and I'm seeing signs of that already with what Sebelius said today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. Giving up is not fighting.
It's giving up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. They are showing spine
they are denying what over 70 percent of Americans want. That takes determination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Really? Can you show me the bill that denies what 70% of us want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Silly ass, they refuse to WRITE it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Who has refused to write it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. But following the advice of certain DUers, he's not going to let the BEST be the enemy of the Good?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. Whenever I feel hopeless about the health care debate...
I read something like this, and my hope returns.

He is really on our side.


And he is still fighting for us.


K&R

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. He Better Pass a Bill with a Public Option.... politically it will be devastating if he doesn't
not to just him, but the whole party. People will not accept excuses....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. Good but I hope it's operated more efficiently than AMTRAK & USPS. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. How much does Fedex charge to mail a letter?
Would you like that to BE the post office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. 1. Fedex and USPS charge similar prices for similar services. 2. USPS is a govt operated &
subsidized monopoly.

The problems USPS has today have several causes among which are email and other technology affecting communication.

IMO garbage mail pushed to me that I immediately throw away should have much higher rates.

Nonetheless, it is subsidized as is AMTRAK and many other Government owned corporations, e.g. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
masuki bance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. Once again you accept generic statements of support
and ignore more recent specific legislative signals.

“The public option – whether we have it or we don’t have it – is not the entirety of health care reform,” the President said. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And, by the way, it’s both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else . . .”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/16/sebelius-there-will-be-competition-with-private-insurers

It's time to put pressure on our elected representatives, not give them cover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. he already caved in. looks like there's not going to be ANY public option.

i'm starting to think this is all a charade.

"insurance reform" my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Giving up and giving in without a fight is a sure way to lose.
Congratulations.

Obama has not caved, you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Alright now, I heard that.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. I don't know what or who you're
talking to but I hear you and it's perfect..there's so much negativity on this board today and more than a few trolls taking advantage of blood in the water..it's nice when you read someone who will have none of that shite.

President Obama is saying over and over again that he needs our help to spread The Facts and get a real Health Insurance Reform passed. Do they even realize the forces of evil power that are against it?! They should..they're getting sucked in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
10. Here is Reuters report on Sebelius remarks on CNN State of the Nation
For the benefit of those that claimed the AP mischaracterized or misquoted Sebelius, you know who you are.

Public insurance plan not essential: Sebelius

Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:40am EDT
By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The government-run health insurance option favored by President Barack Obama is not essential to a healthcare overhaul as long as the final measure boosts competition, a top U.S. health official said on Sunday.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said a public insurance option was "not the essential element" of any overhaul, and non-profit cooperatives being considered by a Senate panel could also fulfill the White House goal of creating more competition on insurance.

"I think what's important is choice and competition, and I'm convinced that at the end of the day the plan will have both of those -- but that is not the essential element," she said of the government-run insurance option on CNN's "State of the Union" show.

"The president is just continuing to say let's not have this be the only focus of the conversation," Sebelius said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57D23Q20090816
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Please include the rest of the statement in regards to the government. TIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. The steering wheel is not the essential element of the automobile, either
As long as all you want is a car that goes forward and backward, you can ditch the steering wheel. The engine, radiator, and alternator will all still work just fine.

Sebelius needs to get a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. EXACTLY! Her and the white should get their message clear. She's NOT helping anyone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Umbral Donating Member (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
15. Never the less, if he signs a bill without a strong public option, he owns it.
And the Democrats, with the largest Congressional majority in my lifetime, will have FAILED. Even worse, a bunch of semi-literate goons and their corporate taskmasters will have won. Behold, the resurrection of the Republican Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
19. Whew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
23. Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8590393&mesg_id=8590393

"...When the “public option” campaign began, its leaders promoted a huge “Medicare-like” program that would enroll about 130 million people. Such a program would dwarf even Medicare, which, with its 45 million enrollees, is the nation’s largest health insurer, public or private. But today “public option” advocates sing the praises of tiny “public options” contained in congressional legislation sponsored by leading Democrats that bear no resemblance to the original model.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “public options” described in the Democrats’ legislation might enroll 10 million people and will have virtually no effect on health care costs, which means the “public options” cannot, by themselves, have any effect on the number of uninsured. But the leaders of the “public option” movement haven’t told the public they have abandoned their original vision. It’s high time they did...


...To see why the “public option” proposed by congressional Democrats remains at great risk of stillbirth, let’s engage in a frustrating thought experiment. Let’s imagine Congress has enacted the House version (it is not quite as weak as the HELP Committee model and thus gives us the greatest opportunity in our thought experiment to imagine a scenario in which the “public option” actually survives its start-up phase). Let us imagine furthermore that you have been foolish enough to apply for the job of executive director of the new “public option,” and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the federal agency within which the program will be housed) decided to hire you. It’s your first day on the job.

You know the House bill did not create a ready-made pool of enrollees for you to work with the way the 1965 Medicare law created a ready-made pool of seniors prior to the day Medicare commenced operations. You realize, in other words, that you represent not a single soul, much less tens of millions of enrollees. You will have to build a pool of enrollees from scratch. You also know the House bill authorized some start-up money for you, so you’ll be able to hire some staff, including sales people if you choose. You can also open offices around the country, and advertise if you think it necessary. But you know you can’t pay out too much money getting the “public option” started because the House bill requires that you pay back whatever start-up costs you incur within ten years. In other words, you may hire enough people and open enough offices and buy enough advertising to create a critical mass of enrollees nationwide, but you must do it quickly so that your start-up costs don’t sink the “public option” during its first decade.

The only other feature in the House bill that appears to give you any advantage over the insurance industry is the provision requiring you to use Medicare’s rates plus 5 percent, which essentially means you are authorized to pay providers 15 percent less than the insurance industry pays on average. But the House bill also says providers are free to refuse to participate in the plan you run..."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. When was this:
When the “public option” campaign began, its leaders promoted a huge “Medicare-like” program that would enroll about 130 million people.


No ever said the public option would cover 130 million people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Original estimate - 130 million people in public option, save 1 Trillion in next decade
the current estimates of the public option would have 10 million people and Cost 1 Trillion over the next decade.

Hacker might have had a good plan to begin with, but it has been compromised so much that it does not come close to the original estimates.

That is quite a shift!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8590393&mesg_id=8592392

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-hickey/lewin-analysis-of-hackere_b_87125.html

"...A year ago, just as EPI was publishing Hacker's HCFA plan, CAF had already gone to work, engaging everyone who would listen in public and private educational discussions about the Hacker-EPI approach -- including presidential candidates from both parties. After a year-long dialogue, we can see how Hacker's work has become the template for both Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's health care plans. And just as importantly, our allies in the labor movement, public interest and community action networks are coming together around basic health care principles that are based on Hacker's model for health care for all. More on this soon - here at this website and at the Take Back America conference March 17, 18 and 19."


http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/evolution-of-the-healthcare-debate.pdf

"...But if the rules for public-private competition are poorly thought out, an inefficient private system will simply suck subsidies from the public sector, sullying the promise of universal coverage...

...Also, Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program offers sincere praise, concluding: “Jacob Hacker’s proposal is a very welcome addition at a time that all options should be on the table. It is such a compelling model that it may shove all others off of the table - except single payer - then we can get down to a serious discussion about reform that really works.”


HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA WOULD SAVE BILLIONS

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/news_release.pdf

"...“Unlike the stale ideas of tax credits and health savings accounts that the ‘You’re On
Your Own’ advocates always push, Health Care for America builds on the strengths we
already have in place through Medicare and our employer-provided system to expand
coverage,” Mishel said. “The plan leverages the power of numbers in a broad national
pool that allows us to reduce costs and expand coverage to virtually everyone in
America.”

The 38 million Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollees would
be folded into the new insurance pool, with current levels of coverage guaranteed. Lewin
estimates that, of the 260 million Americans not enrolled in Medicare, half would be in
the new Health Care for America program and the other half would continue to be
covered by private employer-based coverage."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
25. I think that Obama really does personally prefer a public option, but...
I fear that he might decide to compromise and accept a bill without the public option anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-16-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Politics over principle. Awesome! Glad I support such strong people!
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 Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:09 AM
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