So while Matt Taibbi is slamming those fighting for a public option, he is defending Wyden's plan?

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-22-09 05:29 PM
Original message

So while Matt Taibbi is slamming those fighting for a public option, he is defending Wyden's plan?

Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 05:29 PM by ProSense

From a diary at Daily Kos, quoting Taibbi's latest article:

The system doesn�t work for anyone. It cheats patients and leaves them to die, denies insurance to 47 million Americans, forces hospitals to spend billions haggling over claims, and systematically bleeds and harasses doctors with the specter of catastrophic litigation

The bad news is our failed health care system won�t get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America

Over the course of this summer, those two failed systems have collided in a spectacular crossroads moment in American history. We have an urgent national emergency on the one hand, and on the other, a comfortable majority of ostensibly simpatico Democrats who were elected by an angry population, in large part, specifically to reform health care.

Almost every single one of the main players � from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Blue Dog turncoat Max Baucus � found some unforeseeable, unique-to-them way to fuck this thing up.

It�s a joke, the whole thing, a parody of Solomonic governance. By the time all the various bills are combined, health care will be a baby not split in half but in fourths and eights and fractions of eighths. Its what happens when a government accustomed to dealing on the level of perception tries to take on a profound emergency that exists in reality. No matter how hard Congress may try, though, it simply is not possible to paper over a crisis this vast.

Then again, some of the blame has to go to all of us. It�s more than a little conspicuous that the same electorate that poured its heart out last year for the Hallmark-card story line of the Obama campaign has not been seen much in this health care debate. The handful of legislators = the Weiners, Kuciniches, Wydens and Sanderses � who are fighting for something real should be doing so with armies at their back. Instead, all the noise is being made on the other side. Not so stupid after all � they at least, understand that politics is a fight that does not end with wearing of a T-shirt in November.

link

First, on this point: "Instead, all the noise is being made on the other side. Not so stupid after all � they at least, understand that politics is a fight that does not end with wearing of a T-shirt in November. "

Anyone else get the sense that Matt has issues?

In any case, he lumps Pelosi in with Baucus, slams Obama and defends Wyden (who is still withholding support of a public option)? Here is Wyden's plan

Health Care Reform

The Healthy Americans Act would guarantee every American universal, affordable, comprehensive, portable, high-quality, private health coverage that is as good or better than Members of Congress have today.

The Act includes tough cost containment measures - and would save Americans $1.45 trillion over the next decade.

All 46 million uninsured Americans would be covered, for the same funds currently spent by Americans on health care. And every American will feel secure, knowing that your health care won't ever go away.

There are, of course, many details. Here's a few of the highlights.

The Healthy Americans Act:

guarantees you private health care coverage that doesn't go away, even if you change jobs, lose your job, retire, go to school, or become too sick to work.
provides a generous benefit equal to those of Members of Congress
ensures that everyone has affordable health care coverage, including meaningful assistance to low-income Americans.
puts you in charge of your health care choices, not your employer
makes sure that everyone has the same affordable coverage options, no matter your age, gender, genetic information, or pre-existing health conditions
saves $1.48 trillion over 10 years through tough cost containment
provides incentives for individuals and insurers to focus on prevention, wellness and disease management
creates meaningful and easy-to-understand wellness statistics so that Americans can compare health care plans
is fully paid for by spending the $2.2 trillion currently spent on health care in America

Here's how it would work.

For starters, every American will have the power to choose - and will be required to choose - a comprehensive health insurance plan. The plans will be high-quality, at least as good as what Members of Congress have today. Every American will be able to choose from any plan offered in their region; and they can keep their plan even if they change jobs, lose their job, or become too sick to work.

Here's how Jacob Weisberg described the plan in Slate:

Under Wyden's plan, employers would no longer provide health coverage, as they have since World War II. Instead, they'd convert the current cost of coverage into additional salary for employees. Individuals would use this money to buy insurance, which they would be required to have.

Private insurance plans would compete on features and price but would have to offer benefits at least equivalent to the Blue Cross "standard" option. Signing up for insurance would be as easy as ticking off a box on your tax return. In most cases, insurance premiums would be withheld from paychecks, as they are now.

Eliminating employers as an additional payer would encourage consumers to use health care more efficiently. Getting rid of the employer tax deduction, which costs a whopping $200 billion a year, would free up funds to subsidize insurance up to 400 percent of the poverty line, which is $82,000 for a family of four.

The Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, has estimated that Wyden's plan would reduce overall national spending on health care by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and that it would save the government money through great administrative efficiency and competition.

According to that independent analysis, families who have incomes under $40,000 a year will have less out-of-pocket expenses under the HAA than they do now.

Families between $40,000 and $50,000 would pay about $81/year more - about $7 a month. Families between $50,000 and $150,000 would average between $327 and $341 per year more - about $28 a month.

In return for this modest increase these families would have guaranteed coverage that they could never lose, not if they get sick, not if they lose their jobs, not for any reason. This guaranteed coverage would be more comprehensive and include prevention benefits that would help you and your family improve their health. This new coverage would be fully portable - no longer would you need to stay in a job that paid less, or offered less opportunity, just to maintain health coverage. No longer would a parent need to work hours when they needed to be with their children just to maintain full time status for their health insurance.

Yeah, let's throw out a public option and implement an all private giveaway to the insurance companies.

Ludicrous.