LETTER TO OBAMA: Make public option open to ALL

Someone pointed out to me a section of one of Obama's speeches that the public option would only be open to those without insurance, so I wrote this brief letter:



Feel free to plagiarize this in communication with the http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/">White House or your http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/index.html">Congresspeople.

If you get insurance through your employer, they'll have to provide you with a voucher so you can purchase something on the exchange.

The problem is that your employer provided insurance is provided tax-free, whereas insurance on the exchange is purchased with after-tax dollars.

So it may not make financial sense to take advantage of the voucher, but it will be available as an option.

That was in Wyden's unique plan I thought (and you get a credit). But with the amendment about the vouchers, are you sure the vouchers are taxable? If so, that sucks, but its better than nothing

The CBO doesn't think most people would take advantage of it: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_free_choice_act_moves_forw.html

Individuals who buy insurance on the exchange don't get to buy insurance with post-tax dollars, so I'm guessing that's what would happen with the voucher. I don't know for sure, though.

Other than that, Wyden's plan is a great addition. Not only can people buy into it, but they get a fair portion of the costs covered by their employer (which is a very important aspect to this whole deal)

Vouchers in Senator Ron Wyden's Free Choice Amendment has the same tax exclusion as Employer provided insurance.

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/091709free_choice_amendment.pdf

you can drop your employer coverage just like today. So it's both true it's only open to those without insurace and that it's open to all people.

311. HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

An employer meets the requirements of this section if such employer does all of the following:

(1) OFFER OF COVERAGE- The employer offers each employee individual and family coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312.

(2) CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COVERAGE- If an employee accepts such offer of coverage, the employer makes timely contributions towards such coverage in accordance with section 312.

(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE- Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.

This is an important principle mostly neglected in the current reform effort. I've actually written to her, suggesting more stringent caps and the need to define the minimal care that must be included in every health insurance policy. But I am glad she buys into the cap principle.

Look, if an employer is paying 90% of your private costs, you should be able to switch to the Public Option (EASILY) and have your employer pay at least 90% of the premiums (or whatever is left after need-based subsidization).

This will never happen.

There will be a public option, but it will never be cost-effective to sign up for it unless you are poor enough to receive federal subsidies to pay for it.

If they made a public option that was cost-competitive with private insurance, people would flee their private insurers in droves. This would be financially disastrous to the health insurance industry.

If they won't let the auto industry or the insurance companies like AIG fail, they are not going to destroy the private health insurance industry.

The public option will be kept priced high so that it is not very attractive to people who already have insurance.

By his own words in his last speech on health care, he is not going to destroy the health insurance industry.

Making a government-run public health insurance plan that was cost-competitive with private health insurance would destroy the health insurance industry, as people would flee it in droves for the cheaper option.

They will make sure that the public option is only cost-effective for people receiving a government subsidy, assuming there is a public option at all.

I have all but given up on the "master chess player" meme.

We need nationalized healthcare.

We should have proposed single-payer health insurance.

We could have settled for a real public option.

We're being fooled by a fake public option.

And we may not even get that.

They also overlook the WH deal with big Pharma, that congress is now trying to overturn.

I don't think their problem is stupidity or cowardice--they are trying to serve two masters, the public and businesses screwing the public.

Much like a judge trying to come up with a ruling that will please both a rape victim and her rapist.

I think that scenario is a lot more likely.

and knew negotiating with GOP, who have no real power now, would give them an excuse to do even less for us and give even more to insurance companies.