Senator Kennedy, Don't Let Us Down On The Public Option!

Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:38:47 AM PDT
Senator Kennedy recently affirmed his support for the public option in signing the resolution, which was just introduced onto the Senate floor that health care reform MUST include a public option. Again, as I mentioned in that diary, the devil is in the details about what kind of a public option will come out of the Senate.

slinkerwink's diary :: :: I wrote that I support a Medicare-like public option that is a strong, robust competitive player that keeps the health insurance companies "honest" and helps lower premiums by expanding access to EVERYONE. Also, this article in The Nation, has it right about what the bottom line should be for the public option as an essential part of health care reform, and why we should be aware about the dangers of the Schumer so-called compromise.

While progressive advocates are not rejecting his plan out of hand--they even think it could produce a useful compromise--there are two provisions that could wind up gutting the public option. Schumer rules out requiring that providers who accept Medicare patients also take public plan patients. Some believe such a requirement is the only way to ensure that the public option has the market power to get lower rates with enough participating providers. Schumer would also have the public plan pay more than Medicare. The public plan could still bring down costs by paying somewhere between Medicare rates and those of private insurers (the more liberal House is reportedly considering such a structure), but if lawmakers settle on a requirement that the public plan pay prevailing market prices, the point of a public plan will have been largely lost.

"It's got to have the ability to hold down rates--to me that's the critical part of it," says Urban Institute economist Linda Blumberg. It defeats the purpose to say, "We have a public plan option but we're going to do everything we can to increase its cost so we can have a level playing field."

The public option has to be aggressive, and it's got to be able to compete everywhere to counter-act the monopoly some insurers have in regional markets. And Democrats, like Senator Charles Schumer, should take care to remember that even with a weakened public option or a toothless public option, the insurers will STILL fight against its inclusion in health care reform.

Now, once again, why am I asking Senator Kennedy not to let us down on a Medicare-like public option? It's because of what he wrote in this editorial in the Boston Globe that gave me pause:

We'll make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage because of a preexisting condition or to impose other restrictions that keep you from getting the care you need. We're also hearing that some Americans want the choice of enrolling in a health insurance program backed by the government for the public good, not private profit - so that option will be available too.

That to me indicates a limited public option. I don't want that to happen. Do you? I want a strong, robust Medicare-like public option that is funded by the government, and is OPEN TO ALL AMERICANS, not just "some Americans."

continued>>>>
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/28/736227/-Senator-Kennedy,-Dont-Let-Us-Down-On-The-Public-Option!

Our healthcare needs to cut loose the deadweight of the insurance industry.

Untouchable by greedy social-program cutting politicians. Remove the cap on Social Security withholding and see how far that would go to funding single-payer.

When someone without insurance goes to the ER that cost is passed along to those who do have insurance in the form of higher premiums. But gosh, it just gives me the warm fuzzies to know that it's not a tax, only higher healthcare costs. :eyes:

into single payer - the cap on it needs to be lifted just to keep the retirement, disability and survior benefits solvent. There's been enough raiding of the SS funds for other items.

The income cap on the Medicare tax was lifted years ago.

From OP:

slinkerwink's diary :: :: I wrote that I support a Medicare-like public option that is a strong, robust competitive player that keeps the health insurance companies "honest" and helps lower premiums by expanding access to EVERYONE.

NO.

What the ins cos will do is work as hard as they can to re-write the legislation in a way that puts
single payer at a disadvantage.

Further, just by allowing ins cos in the legislation means that nationalized health care will cost twice what it should, which will put pressure to collapse the whole thing and label it as a failure.