Obama DEFINES the ISSUES: Any acceptable plan must have BOTH a Public Option & OPEN ENROLLMENT !!!!

:toast:


Obama's June 2 letter to Senators Baucus and Kennedy today clearly defines the issues in which the Senate Finance Committee (specifically Senators Baucus and Schumer) have failed to address:

The president's letter states unequivocally,




The president has identified the tactic that Big Insurance is taking in their attempt to turn the challege of health reform into an opportunity for corporate welfare.

Specifically, Obama realizes that Big Insurance wants to cripple any public option by continuing their CHERRY PICKING of the low risk, profitable demographics, while continuing to exclude applicants on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Obama realizes that this process will lead to "Adverse Selection", turning the public plan into nothing more than a dumping ground for those unprofitable patients the insurance companies don't want.....And that this "Adverse Selection" will cripple the public plan in its efforts to compete, and to offer an affordable alternative to normal Americans.

Obama knows we cannot afford to spend our resources for the benefit of insurance companies.

He knows for the public plan to succeed, and for us to prosper, we need a level, competitive playing field.




Unfortunately, when Sen. Schumer met recently with physicians from PNHP, although he promised to "consider" 2 of the 5 issues they raised in regard to Schumer's plan, schumer pointedly REFUSED to consider point 5 --- that insurance companies participating in the pool ACCEPT ALL COMERS. This refusal by Schumer placed him squarely on the side of the insurance lobbyists, squarely against OPEN ENROLLMENT (which would require community ratings).

But the president has now clearly defined the issue.

And requiring OPEN ENROLLMENT, as important as it is for the establishment of competition between public and private plans, IS NOT THAT RADICAL!!!!

In fact, it's not only the only the fair, competitive, and American thing to do, it's EXACTLY WHAT WE DID WITH REGARD TO MEDICARE HMO'S. Medicare HMO's are required to offer open enrollment to all Medicare beneficiaries who choose to sign up --- once a year. And this logical demand for OPEN ENROLLMENT has NOT run off the insurance companies.

I called Sen. Schumer's office earlier this week, and the receptionist promised that an aide to Sen. Schumer who works with him on healthcare plan would return my call.......that phone call has yet to be returned.

Sen. Schumer needs to see the light, and re-structure his plan to stipulate OPEN ENROLLMENT.





Our president HAS IT RIGHT!!! There are 2 absolutely essential requirements for any true:

- - - - #1 It must include a viable public option for all Americans

- - - - #2 The public option must not be CRIPPLED, and Americans denied access to private plans, by PRE-EXISTING CONDITION exclusions. ALL PRIVATE PLANS PARTICIPATING IN THE EXCHANGE MUST OFFER OPEN ENROLLMENT and not decline applicants based upon pre-existing conditions (that is,they must use community ratings).





Get with the program, Sen. Schumer!!

The president has it right!!!






:toast:






:kick:

The private sector gets all the profitable patients, and we the People get the patients the Insurance industry rejects.

If that is the option, forget it. Getting rid of For Profit health care is in the interest of everyone.

instead of taxing the premium benefits.

This was great news today!

As would publicly funding it, forcing doctors to accept it, forcing private insurers to honor claims, and allowing it to negotiate aggressively for low rates (basically the exact opposite of what Schumer suggested

Thats one method to stick the public option with the sick people. Promise them coverage for $2K a month. Can this approach ever fucking work?

In any event, the private insurance companies would have to create value, if they are to compete.

Because they could cover you for nothing if you are healthy and 25 to 50.

......I believe (although it doesn't appear that that point is specifically addressed in the letter.....just the issue of denial for pre-existing conditions......but I believe that pre-existing conditions have been traditionally used to either exclude one from coverage, or to deny specific claims, but not to apply a differential rate.....whether this is a matter of custom or regulation I do not know. But you have raised a good point that needs a specific answer.)

I think differential rates based on community rating, and age, probably would be.

Medicare premiums, or even better a sliding scale for premiums.

a public plan will be the same no matter who offers it.

Schumer has modified that to take the position that it might not need to be self supporting immediately, but would later.

What do you think a future Senate Finance Committee headed by Republicans might want to require?

In any event, there are multiple advantages to having a level playing field, and to require that all participating plans, public and private, have open enrollment. As the president says, it will give Americans more options. And it will forc e the private companies to become competitive and create value (rather than spending their efforts competing for the lowest risk customers, as the current incentives encourage).

And weakening the public plan economically, so that it could only offer affordable rates by increasing subsidies, would apply increased fiscal pressures, which is the GOP's strategy for attacking all things public.

They can offer a more expensive plan, but as a cost of the privilege of being in the business, they have to offer the basic plan.

The idea is to make insurance a commodity -- like wheat or soybeans.

But it begs to question, why even bother with private providers if you are going to go so far to regulate and hamstring them in this manner?

This is really the way insurance companies used to be regulated -- like utilities. They can't really say it's unprecedented.

When both Obama and Hillary were floundering on this issue in the primaries, Edwards announced his plan, which is pretty much where Obama is now.

Once you turn the insurance companies into utilities, if you want a single payer, it's a small step. In the meantime, you use their infrastructure to create universal coverage.

Im not sure how it will avoid a political struggle. That like pretending everyone is stupid. If they are really going to engineer this to go to single payer, its naive to think you aren't going to meet the same opposition.

Health Care meme, but will it ever become reality?

The logic just doesn't add up for why they aren't going directly to single-payer

May there be at least 68 more of them. Or at least 41 more...

Recommended.

For the most part, I try not to respond right away when I read President Obama is breaking a campaign promise until I get more info. It doesn't always work. I'm not saying Obama will not do things I disagree with, just that it takes time for accurate information to get out on some of his policy decisions. I'm really relieved to know that this is what he's aiming for in health care.

:rofl:
:rofl:
:puke:

we'll have to see where it goes.:popcorn:

It's not just the physicians at Physicians for a National Heathcare Plan who realize that we need a competitive, level playing field........

.....that ALL INSURANCE companies participating in the program need to have OPEN ENROLLMENT, to accept all comers without regard to pre-existing conditions (based on a community rating)


.......just like Medicare Advantage plans have to take all comers.




It's not just PNHP, Sen. Schumer, it's OUR PRESIDENT!!!!

Get with the program, Sen. Schumer!

Re-structure your bill to stipulate OPEN ENROLLMENT by all participating private plans!

Along with our own representatives.

for all people, but it's a good start

Now here's hoping he and we will help make it happen.

:patriot: :toast:

:bounce:

What does it have to do with denying exclusions for preexisting conditions?

The idea is that insurance companies have no roll whatsoever in determining who they will and will not ensure.

The basic idea is to make insurance a commodity -- like wheat or soybeans. You show up (or go online) look at the price and buy it. No screening, no medical, no excluding for previously existing conditions.

It's kind of a no brainer and used to be how most insurance was. Then the insurance companies began competing on profitability, and decided that by insuring as few sick people as possible, they generated more profits.

small business will offer short term and long term disability, dental, and eye insurance that were not affordable in the past. the self employed will no longer have to purchase insurance that all but cripples their income.

the program could be a bigger stimulus to the economy than all the stimulus packages combined.

terms of coverage but I fear the costs.

Take a look at the Massachusetts plan and you will see that it is very expensive. The poor, unemployed, the self-employed or those of average means still cannot afford the premiums.

Stop the wars, stop the corruption, rein in big business, especially the insurance companies and we can all have government sponsored healthcare-like most of the rest of the world.

Even programs like Medicare cost a lot. The required $100.00(ish) a month for part B, with deductible, the supplements to cover what B does not cover, plus the cost of drugs-including the foolish donut-hole all combine to make the monthly cost about $200.00, depending on your plan. That is a lot out of a Seniors Social Security check. Many of us do not have the supplements because that $200.00 or so a month helps pay the house taxes, buy food, pay the rest of our bills.

I have yet so read anything that will convince me that an all encompassing, single payer is not the right way to go.

Politicians never see the light. They only feel the heat.

Thank you for posting this, Faryn Balyncd. This is what I've been wanting and waiting to hear from President Obama.

Recommend.

Thanks for Senator Schumer's number.

So far this year we are averaging over 1/2 million people losing their jobs every month. By the end of June there will be over 3 million people who can't afford any health care insurance of any kind. Only their small children will be covered some what by SCHIP. At the current rate of job loss there will be over 6 million more people without health care by the end of the year. My bet is that they all will be wanting SPHC. Single payer health care.

To ever really give a damn about real people.

That indifference starts with Obama and works its way down.

But then, I guess he never said that he would care more about people than Corporate America while he campaigned.

He just let us HOPE that he would.

Thanks for posting. :kick:

legislation, he damn well better INSIST on it. Hell, do one of those Executive Orders.

Open Enrollment: Everyone who wants to sign up and makes the premium payments gets in. No denials of coverage.

Community Rating: Everyone pays the same. Risk is calculated by the actuaries and split across the entire pool of customers. Nobody gets their rates jacked up because of age or medical conditions or any other reason.

Mandatory minimum benefits. In essence, if a medical procedure, device or medication is something that is within the bounds of generally accepted medical practice to treat a medical condition (with the exception of pure cosmetic procedures,) the insurer MUST cover it. In fact, there should be a centralized database of conditions/procedures/medications/devices/etc. that any doctor or provider can access, to determine whether a particular treatment is covered. If it's in the database, the doctor can just do it, then send the insurer the bill, and the insurer must pay. No more begging for permission from insurance company beancounters - the doctor & patient get the final say.

That on top of a strong and un-nerfed public option to keep the insurers honest.

the Senators have really disappointed me here .

Good to hear the president moving back in the proper direction with this.