Reid announces health care bill will have public option

One minor note... (4.00 / 1)

The word is that the bill doesn't make the Public Option available until 2012-3. Unless the "mandatory insurance" is not made mandatory until that time Dodd still needs to fight to ensure that there is a public option made available at the same time as insurance becomes mandatory.

The answer is to make Medicare available to all at once with the additional 5% payment to providers (the House Public Option sometimes called Medicare+5). The infrastructure is already in place, it's just a matter of determining the cost for coverage and providing a payment/billing system. I would propose initially offering it quarterly until we have a full understanding of the actual costs and can adjust appropriately to ensure that the policies are fair.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 22:14:11 PM UTC

As Always (4.00 / 2)

The devil is in the details and although this is good news we should NEVER let our guard down because there are supposed Democrats in both houses of Congress and in Obamas Whitehouse who will sell real reform out in a NY minute.

---

by: ctkeith @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 22:37:48 PM UTC

Sen. Nelson (0.00 / 0)

I just recently discovered that Sen. Ben Nelson is a former CEO of an insurance company. Explains a lot.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 13:56:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

This Opt-Out Public Option was designed to pass the Senate. What comes out of the House will, hopefully, be stronger, and what's included in the bill after the Conference Committee will be what we ultimately get.

From Ezra Klein:

The public option that states can "opt out" of is a compromise from the straight public option. Access to the public option will be a political question settled at the state level. It is not a settled matter of national policy.

... It's only offered to individuals eligible for the insurance exchanges, which is a small minority of the population. The majority of Americans who rely on employer-based insurance would not be allowed to choose the exchanges. From there, it is only one of many options on the exchange, and only in states that choose to have it. In other words, it has been designed to preserve the status quo and be decided on the state level.

The House Bill is better, but this Senate bill was an important step in the right direction. Dodd needs to fight to make sure that what comes out of the Conference Committee is closer to the House Bill.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:05:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sen. Dodd Statement (4.00 / 1)

Posted over at CCAG.net:

"I fought for a strong public option - in the HELP Committee and in this merger process - because it is the best way to keep costs low and insurance companies honest," said Dodd. "Majority Leader Reid has made a bold and right choice to endorse the HELP Committee public option, along with a provision allowing states to opt out. At its core, health care reform is about making insurance more stable and affordable for those who have it, and available to those who don't, while improving quality and lowering costs. I believe that the public option is a key component to successful reform, and I will continue to lead the fight for it on the Senate floor."

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 23:22:49 PM UTC

Awesome news (0.00 / 0)

Of course, this is far from over. But this is great to hear. I have to be honest: I didn't know if it was gonna happen for a while.

---

by: Mike Peterson @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 00:10:05 AM UTC

Harry Reid... (0.00 / 0)

While I have been critical of Sen. Reid in the past, I certainly applaud this move. He seems to have sided with Dodd over Baucus and he is ahead of President Obama on this issue. Obama is said to prefer the "trigger".

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 14:01:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Don't Get IT (0.00 / 0)

I can't understand how it's OK to let a state say its citizens are not eligible to participate in a federal program. That just seems crazy to me. Am I missing something?

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 14:46:13 PM UTC

Medicare... (0.00 / 0)

I have read somewhere that there is actually an opt-out in Medicare. No states opted out of Medicare and it is hard to imagine a state not allowing their citizens to be in the public option. I don't care for the opt-out, but it may be the best we can get.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:10:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that was Medicaid (0.00 / 0)

which covers the poor.Arizona,I believe,was the last state to join after they opted out for quite a few years if I'm not mistaken.

---

by: ctkeith @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:16:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS (0.00 / 0)

Medicaid is administered by the states whereas medicare is administered by the feds so that's the big difference.

---

by: ctkeith @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:17:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Keith... (0.00 / 0)

What you say makes sense...I may have misread the article.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:33:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

People with insurance can't participate either (0.00 / 0)

The so called public option as defined in Senate version apparently only is for those "without insurance" as I understand it.  Those with inadequate insurance (technically without coverage, but not without insurance) or whose policies are prohibitively expensive I think are still stuck. I'd like someone to look at the "medically caused bankruptcy every 30 seconds" data to see how many of those people are technically covered by a plan, but not sufficiently,and how many of them would be helped -- or not -- by this proposal.

Over time, what is the chance that this group becomes an increasingly imbalanced risk pool?  It may presently be not too random. Those without it now may be unemployed and/or may be disproportionately in poor health.  Don't forget -- annual rates of medically caused bankruptcies are happening at a rate of ZERO per YEAR in Switzerland  and some of the other right-wing-maligned countries with enlightened public health schemes. Why would incrementally reducing the rate in the United States something to cheer wildly about?  Why do we tolerate this?

The senate version sounds like it has the potential to be a dumping ground for insurance companies and corporations for people they don't want in their pools, so they can lower rates while reaching record profits (1000% profit last year? Tripled the rates over the last 3 years?). Can someone clarify or enlighten me on this point?

I would want to be watchful about loopholes that permit companies (corporations and insurance companies) to manipulate the ways they can get undesirable people off insurance, while preventing people with crappy policies from using the public option to get something better.

What I don't want to see is an incrementally introduced 5-year law for revamping the insurance companies' risk pools while not really changing what doesn't work.

Allowing state opt-outs, when 90
% of states' insurance markets are dominated by one or two companies, means that some states potentially might not really have any improvement at all unless meaningful anti-trust legislation is passed.

I should be breathlessly excited.  I have to say, I continue dubious.

When a two-year-old makes a mud pie that looks more like a cow pie, adults compliment the child on their handiwork.

That's kinda how I feel here.  Maybe I am missing something.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:59:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Missing nothing... (0.00 / 0)

It is just that we have had to constantly downgrade our expectations. Reids' plan isn't much,(especially for those who support single-payer), but is probably the best we can expect from our progress retarding Senate.  

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 19:32:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and... (0.00 / 0)

the Senate is so dominated by the Corporatists, we may not even get that.  

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 19:39:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]