Loaded, Leading
Gordon Smith and the Klamath Fish Kill
The Smearing of Betsy Johnson


Mesothelioma


Learn more about mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

NiewertAward NiewertAward


Poll
Should the Lieberman Health Care Bill Be Killed?
Yes
No
Wait and See
Not Sure

Results

LoadedO Blogger Archives
Loaded Orygun

Click here to find our archives from February 2006 through July 14, 2007

Search




Advanced Search


Send email to LoadedO!
Follow LoadedO on Twitter!
Find your favorite Trail Blazers memorabilia including jerseys and apparel

PUBLIC OPTION IS IN! Merkley Releases Statement on Merged Senate Bill

by: torridjoe

Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 14:12:44 PM PDT


Big, huge, MAJOR news from the Senate:

The public option lives.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Monday that the bill he will bring to the Senate floor will include a public health insurance option that individual states could decline to participate in.

"The public option, with an opt-out, is the one that's fair," Reid said. He said his decision was supported by the White House and by Senate Finance Commitee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Don't believe me? I don't blame you. But unless it's the cruelest parody video in history, here's the proof:

This hoped-for but still somewhat unexpected turn of events creates an entirely different, MUCH more positive dynamic for health care reform than just last week, when the PO-less Finance bill was still passed with full Democratic panel support. Evidently they were promised that things would improve with the merged Finance-HELP bill, but given the way things have gone with promises and deals over the years, you could forgive anyone for skepticism.

But now, assuming the House is able to follow through on its version, that is even stronger than the Senate bill, the likelihood that some form a of a real, nationally-based public option will be in the final legislation is now near 100%--and anyone who has been following this story during 2009 has to understand just how remarkable it is to be able to make that statement. The PO was dead a number of times, and it clearly did not have strong backing from the White House or the "sensible" members of the Senate. They had to be pushed to where we are now, and frankly, I'm not sure anyone can even remember the last time a legislative process was significantly pushed to the left.

One thing to note is that the version in the Senate bill will indeed include a state-based "opt-out;" that is, under some as-yet undetermined process a state could decide not to allow its residents to avail themselves of the public option in any health exchange. But as many have said, Medicaid is opt-out, too. So was the stimulus bill, and so are highway funds. The opt-out record for all three? Zero, despite much blustering and threatening otherwise.

No statement has hit my email box yet from Senator Wyden on this momentous accomplishment, but that's not necessarily meaningful. If and when something comes on, I'll append it. But Senator Merkley--who has been a very strong supporter of the PO, and helped put together the HELP Committee version of the bill that will be supplying much of the terms for the Senate configuration of it--is on the ball:

It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.

Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. States may choose to opt-out based on their individual needs and the input of their citizens, but this provision will ensure that most Americans will have the choice between private insurance or a public plan that operates on a level playing field. This is a reasonable compromise to this issue and takes us one step closer to action by the full Senate to finally pass health care reform and fix our broken system.

Right on, Jeff, right on.

torridjoe :: PUBLIC OPTION IS IN! Merkley Releases Statement on Merged Senate Bill
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Huh. I thought you'd be crying... (0.00 / 0)
After all, it's Chuck Schumer's "level playing field" public option, not the "robust" public option you've been demanding lo these many months.

And as everybody knows, if it ain't 100% what Torrid Joe wants (and described 100% in Torrid Joe's language), it's 100% bad.


I guess your'e a fool then (0.00 / 0)
or you're just snarking for some unknown reason. Yes, it IS Schumer's level playing field version--which of course while based on negotiated rates, is in fact a real, national public option, and represents a huge step up from the Baucus offering. And I hope you're not surprised, since the HELP bill features the negotiated rate PO, and therefore was a pretty obvious merge-point.

Perhaps more importantly, placing the level playing field version as the baseline against what might be Med +5, sets us up for a still better PO in the final bill.

I see Merkley is up front and visible in his recognition that the PO was a necessary and welcome step. I also see Wyden continues to hammer on fringe issues like whether people can switch insurance they already have, instead of core issues like covering more people and reducing costs. Funny how things work out.

But I'm sure it's jarring to step away from Blue Oregon and visit blogs that don't blindly and vacantly cheer for the Democratic brand no matter way.  


[ Parent ]
and I guess I can't put (0.00 / 0)
the apostrophe in the right place...

[ Parent ]
covering more people. (0.00 / 0)
instead of core issues like covering more people

Huh?  That's Wyden's WHOLE issue -- the idea that the public option (and the private options, in the health exchange) ought to be available to everyone.


[ Parent ]
but it doesn't cover more people (0.00 / 0)
all it does is let people with private coverage switch it to public coverage (if there is such a thing, no thanks to Wyden). That doesn't increase coverage, as CBO indicated relative to Baucus' mark and I don't see what changes with a PO.

That's a good thing, and feeding the PO with customers is a good thing--but it's ancillary to the covering more people and reducing costs. It would reduce costs as a function of adding more people to the rolls, yes--but that shows how ancillary it is, since it only works as a function of the PO existing in the first place.

The House bill already provides mechanisms to increase the coverage umbrella, but if Wyden is really concerned about choice and access to the exchange, why not focus on a stopgap bill to give everyone the chance to get into GEHA, which is basically what he's pitched the whole time..."coverage like we get in Congres." It's an exchange of private insurers, and it could provide relief during that crucial period before the PO becomes operative in 2013. I just don't see free choice being something fundamental to focus on right now. I don't necessarily want more people on public insurance; I'd like fair treatment and competitive pricing on private insurance, and that comes not from free choice but from a strong public plan that can approximate Medicare overhead.  


[ Parent ]
"I don't necessarily want more people on public insurance" (0.00 / 0)
Interesting statement.

Setting that aside, here's a little pop quiz for you: Why doesn't Medicare cause private insurance rates to go down?

Oh never mind, I'll just give you the answer.  Even though Medicare is a single-payer system for Americans over 65, it doesn't put price pressure on private health insurance companies because they don't compete for the same customers.  

Similarly, if the public option and private insurers don't compete for customers, the existence of a lower-cost public option won't put price pressure on private health insurance.  If there's no one that can switch from private to public, then the privates don't have to worry about whatever price the public side offers.

The whole point of the public option is to put downward pressure on the private insurance market.  But the only way that works is if they're competing for customers.


[ Parent ]
interesting? (0.00 / 0)
You mean you DO want more people on public insurance? Wouldn't it be preferable to NOT subsidize people to be insured, and rather eventually make it affordable and effective enough for people to buy it privately? I don't have a fundamental problem with private insurance any more than I do with private ambulance companies. But I thought the goal was to cover everyone with affordable, good quality health care. To the extent that private companies have utterly failed, there must be a public solution. But there are multiple examples in other western countries where private entities are heavily involved, and outcomes and costs are still much better than ours. I was never under the impression that the goal was to enroll everyone in a public plan.

To address your other point, I think you're failing to include those who can largely afford "normal" insurance, but who have lost their coverage due to unfair recission or health conditions that create high costs but that may not be catastrophic care. You're also leaving out the self-insured, who simply can't gain enough economy of scale to afford individual insurance, and those in small businesses. The House bill had built-in tools to widen the scope of eligibility as time goes on, immediately expanding the employee limit and then leaving discretion to Sebelius and her successors. I think it's preferable to turn on the spigot slowly and then open it up gradually, rather than turning it on full blast and having to then turn it DOWN in order to get that simple drink of water, so that kind of adustment flexibility makes sense to me. And then there are the businesses who will simply drop their employees (leaving them eligible for the public plan), pay the fine and move on without having to deal with the headache that insuring employees can be.  


[ Parent ]
wha? (0.00 / 0)
You mean you DO want more people on public insurance? Wouldn't it be preferable to NOT subsidize people to be insured, and rather eventually make it affordable and effective enough for people to buy it privately?

You don't actually understand the public option, do you?  Whether there's a public option or not is an entirely separate question from whether or how big the subsidies are.  

There will be subsidized people in the public option - and wealthy unsubsidized people in the public option.

Yes, I want more people on the public insurance program - if that's what they want to choose.  

Off-topic, but absolutely fascinating:  Since October 29, when you posted the above comment, there's been exactly two comments on all of Loaded Orygun.  Some "community" you've got going.  


[ Parent ]
you're kind of a condescending dick, (0.00 / 0)
aren't you? At least, your "my blog's dick is bigger than yours" barb at the end of your comment would suggest so. It sure would be nice to have my business subsidize my blog project like yours does (not so nice to have my blog topics beholden to keeping my business as yours is, but I guess that's the price you pay), but those of us who have to squeeze in time on it at the end of all other responsibilities are not blessed with that luxury. In any case, I think I'd prefer a few rational comments to the stream of idiocy often prevalent at BlueO. But hey, thanks for slumming down at the Tumbleweed Hotel with us.

The existence of a public option is indeed separate from the existence or level of subsidies--but for the most part, especially at the genesis of any public plan, the people on it will be subsidized by the government. The goal is not to put as money people into a public plan as possible; the goal is to cover everyone and do it cost effectively. If the public plan can, through its efficiencies, bring competition to bear on private plans, not only will those opting public see savings--so will those in private plans not opting to switch.

Interestingly, you're now telling me there will be wealthy unsubsidized people in the PO--yet for months you've been haranguing the idea that the PO would be too burdened by those too poor or sick to buy it without subsidy. I think you might be the one confused.


[ Parent ]

Return to LO home...!


RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Change.org|Start Petition

Put your message up top!


Blog ads are good karma...

Thanks for Saving Soapblox! (and by extension, LO!)


Loaded Links
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless

Powered by: SoapBlox