"Public Option" Bait and Switch

Big $$$ (0.00 / 0)

I was already pretty cynical about Himes' dedication to health care reform; this solidifies that cynicism.  I also received a Dodd mailer a few weeks back, paid for by the pharma industry.  Given the massive amounts of pharma and insurance money being taken by those in Congress, I really don't hold out much hope for effective reform.  What the hell do we have to do to make our representatives represent OUR interests instead of corporate profits???  

---

by: chele @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 16:29:50 PM UTC

We haven't heard back from Jim Himes (0.00 / 0)

Many of us signed a group letter to him urging him to support real health reform and a real government-offered health insurance plan.  We haven't heard back from him.

What else can we do?  Keep watching his commercials financed by PhRMA?

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 18:30:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We Now Have a Reply (0.00 / 0)

Liken it to pablum!

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 16:00:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great link (4.00 / 1)

Sullivan's piece is a must-read for anyone interested in the dynamics of this and other big policy fights in DC - how progressives tend to lose before the fight even begins by ceding ideological and definitional ground, even when their ideas (such as the public option) are politically popular ones which in addition would have lasting political benefits for Democrats for years to come.

That's why whipping and defining the public option, so that it isn't whittled away even more, is so important.

Activism with individual legislators is crucial in such a high-stakes fight. However, the assumption that, say, Chris Dodd could single-handedly have gotten a better public option through a committee consisting of apx. 2 dozen United States Senators - or that he or any other legislator is "selling us out" for campaign cash - is not really substantiated by any fact. These are institutional problems that demand institutional solutions.

---

by: tparty @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 16:57:24 PM UTC

And two imporant things about HELP bill (4.00 / 2)

1. The statement that the public option in the HELP bill is "unlikely to insure anyone" is very, very misleading.

According to the CBO analysis linked to in Sullivan's own piece,

"Once the legislation was fully implemented, CBO and JCT staff estimate, about 20 million fewer people would be uninsured compared with projections under current law. About 26 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and about 6 million fewer people would purchase nongroup coverage outside the exchanges.

And the "new insurance exchanges" in the HELP bill? That actually includes the public option:

The proposal includes a "public plan" that would be offered in the exchanges. The plan would be established nationwide by the Secretary via contracts with local entities (which could include non-profit insurers) to administer the plan; payment rates would be  negotiated by the Secretary.

2. As Ezra Klein notes, HELP actually has no jurisdiction over Medicare or Medicaid, the latter of which, if access is expanded to 150% of the poverty line the Finance Committee's legislation, could cover an additional 20 million people:

The big news of the morning is a new version of the Senate HELP Committee's health-care reform bill that seems to have everyone confused. The short version is this: CBO estimates that by 2019 the bill will cover 21 million people at a cost of $597 billion. But -- and this is important -- the HELP Committee's bill doesn't include the Medicaid expansion, because Medicaid is under the sole jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. But if Medicaid is expanded to 150 percent, it will cover an additional 20 million at a cost of about $1 trillion. Add in the savings that Finance is expected to get from reforming Medicare and you're looking at a bill that will cost $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion and cover 42 million people (which would mean 97 percent of the legal population in 2019 would have health insurance) by 2019.

So the HELP bill is much stronger than being suggested in Sullivan's post.

---

by: tparty @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 18:24:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right. Finance committee and Medicaid will make a big difference ... (0.00 / 0)

... leaving "only" about 8 million uninsured, instead of 34 million. The Finance Committee is Max Bauchus's committee. Relying on Max for that expanded coverage doesn't leave me feeling hopeful -- I wonder if it can be added on the Senate floor.  

One of the other keys to the HELP Committee's bill is employer mandates, and Blue Dog Democrats are trying to kill those mandates.

Paul Krugman:

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid - and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they're just being complete hypocrites.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 19:45:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks like the Blue Dogs succeeded (4.00 / 1)

As reported here:

After weeks of secretive talks, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee were edging closer to a compromise that excludes a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for large businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite Obama's support for such a plan, officials said....

"We're going to get agreement here," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman, said Monday. "The group of six really wants to get to 'yes.'"

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 17:44:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More on whip counts ... (0.00 / 0)

... and pushing for health care reform from the left at The Nation.

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 19:32:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We've Got To Keep Fighting (0.00 / 0)

A diary posted today on Daily Kos is entitled: "House Progressives Take Hard Line on Public Option."  The piece suggests that a number of Progressives in The House have let Nancy Pelosi know that they won't vote for any bill that fails to contain a robust Public Option.  You can read the piece here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 18:19:42 PM UTC

Sorry - these options should never have been made public (0.00 / 0)

The public options in the House AND Senate bills are worthless - unless and until we know what they will cost the individual/family, what the level of benefits will be (specific specifics, please), and who will be allowed to buy in.  47 million Americans covered by "Charter Oak Goes to Washington" is NOT reform.

Not to mention the fact that, in all likelihood, these public options will do nothing for the millions of insured Americans, like myself, who strain and stress to pay more and more for less and less coverage.

And call me a cynic (Hey - I heard that!), but I am assuming that the more complex the reform bill, the easier it will for AHIP and friends to completely game the system.  For them, I'm sure the fact that we will all be forced to buy their blatantly defective products easily trumps the money they will have to spend to learn how to get around all of the new "regulations."  They've probably already developed the brochures and the pop-up/down ads to - you guessed it! - maximize profit and minimize actual health care in the "era of reform."  With the basic health care system unchanged, they will reign much as they do now.

Personally, I put more faith in SustiNet here in Connecticut.

---

by: iBlog @ Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 19:50:05 PM UTC