(10 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
“It’s ok if you want to have a government option but you’ve got to leave the private sector private.”
— Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Aug. 17, 2009
Most of us have probably seen the latest poll: 79% of Americans support a public option. The specific question asked I think hits the nail right on the head:
Do you support or oppose starting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can’t afford private plans offered to them?
Why is it not too obvious to state that the public option should be the one thing that is not negotiable for progressives and Democrats?
If there is to be talk of compromise, why can’t that talk start with the items in the bill that directly affect the private insurance market, such as the various mandates on, and subsidies to, individuals, families, small businesses and insurance companies.
What about no requirements on or subsidies to anyone in the private insurance market other than what already exists, but instead, just a quality, affordable public option for those want it?
I’ve been racking my brain for weeks trying to understand why we can’t just do this, and only this.
Once we have a new federal health insurance plan that individuals, families and small businesses can buy into at an affordable rate, what else do we need? If it’s a quality plan, affordable to all, available to all, then who cares what the private sector does? At most a few basic consumer protections on private insurance would seem to be the only other issue.
This a true bipartisanship. Health care reform that leaves the private insurance system intact is by definition not a “government takeover of our health care system”. Requiring all private insurers to accept all applicants regardless of any pre-existing conditions, with premiums set by a “community rating” system, with subsidies to low-income people to buy private insurance, etc., etc, — yes, those can be said to constitute at the very least, significantly increased government influence in the private health care system.
But why do we as progressives care that much about any of that? Once we’ve got a public plan that’s good quality and affordable to everyone, then we have what we need. Everyone who wants it will be guaranteed access to an affordable health insurance plan, and private insurers will have to compete with the public plan on price and quality.
Why don’t we just insist on this, and only this? Who could oppose something supported by four out of every five Americans, and even a clear majority of Republicans?
It doesn’t have to be a complicated 1000 page bill. It’s a simple bill that just establishes a new plan, the parameters of it, and some funding mechanisms. No basis whatsoever for allegations of “death panels”, no “end of life counseling”, no cuts to Medicare. Any new laws would only pertain to the public plan, not to the private sector. It could just be a relatively simple, elegant, new program rolled out to great applause and acclaim, supported by nearly everyone.
WTF is wrong with us — why don’t we just do this and be done with it?
If there are no new requirements on the private market, there’d also be no basis for subsidies to them, and thus all public funds would go only to the public plan, and great way to be assured that our tax dollars do not end up in the pockets of health insurance company CEO’s and shareholders instead of being used to provide actual health care for those who need it.
Why not just focus our public funds on our public plan, as do know with Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, and as nearly every other country does. “Privatizing” universal health care is a recipe for disaster, whether it be in terms of affordability, quality of care, or federal budgetary issues.
Small businesses want the public option.
HuffPost h/t to Davis X Machina in the comments: Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe addressed some of these issues in a meeting Tuesday with business representatives and lobbyists from her state Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition; Clifford Mohr, president of Group Dynamic Inc.; Greg Dugal, executive director of the Maine Innkeepers Association; Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the Maine Heritage Policy Center; Dean Powers, director of the Maine Small Business Coalition; Richard Grotton, CEO of the Maine Restaurant Association; David Spellman, President of the Pratt Financial Group; and several other lobbyists.
She quizzed the bunch on what they thought of the proposal to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. She added that she was considering requiring business with more than 50 employees to pay 100 percent of the cost of subsidies for their employees’ health insurance.
Small business representatives told Snowe that they were opposed to any mandates that came without a public option and that such an alternative was desperately needed for small business, which can’t afford the rising cost of health insurance for their employees. The costs make them unable to compete on a level playing field with bigger companies, which can use their size to leverage lower prices. Lobbyists representing larger corporations took the opposite position.
The heart of the Finance Committee’s bill, Snowe said, is regulation that would force health insurers to offer, at an affordable price, a minimum standard of coverage — a so-called “bronze” plan.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
— Matthew 22:21
4 comments
Skip to comment form
Author