House Healthcare Plan won't establish public option until 2013 and Medicare rates will be phased out

[Better Believe It]

My Thoughts On The Public Option In House Draft
by slinkerwink
Daily Kos
June 21, 2009

Here's what Wonk Room had to say about the House bill below:

"Unlike the HELP bill and the draft (leaked) language of the Senate Finance Committee, the Tri-Committee proposal seems to contain a fairly robust public insurance option. While details are still being worked out, the proposal establishes a public plan in 2013 that will compete with private insurers, within the Exchange, on a level playing field. The public option will be required to abide by all marketing, operations, and rating rules and would initially be allowed to use Medicare plus rates. After some time, the plan would have to independently negotiate fees with providers."

And there it seems that it might be wrong about the public option in the Tri-Committee proposal being available everywhere on day one. How can it be available on day one if it's supposed to be available in 2013 and the National Exchange that's proposed to cut down on costs is established in 2013 as well? This is one of the sticking points for us to push back on starting tomorrow. We'll have to ask the House Education and Labor Committee if the private insurers will have to be regulated immediately after the passage of the legislation or if the regulation starts in 2013. The delay for this puzzles me.

Always remember, the devil is in the details.

Another sticking point for us to push back on is that the public option will have to stop using Medicare plus rates at a certain point in time. Here's more from Karen Tumulty at Time Magazine on what that means:

"In the early stage, the public plan would reimburse health care providers at rates that are "similar to those used in Medicare"--that is, significantly lower than most private insurers pay them. This is something that the insurance industry, doctors and hospitals will all hate."

According to the summary, this tie to Medicare rates would be "severed over time as more flexible payment systems are developed." In other words, this public plan would eventually evolve into something that looks--and competes--more like a private insurance company, albeit one that happens to be run by the government."

This is the biggest sticking point for us to push back on along with the one about the public option having to be self-sustaining only on premiums, and we'll need to ask the Congressional Progressive Caucus to push back on this as well. Basically, we'll have a strong public option at first, but over time, it'll be weakened. I don't think this is right.

Please read the complete article and what you can do to demand a strong public option at:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/21/745208/-My-Thoughts-On-The-Public-Option-In-House-Draft

[lindisfarne]

1. 2013 is too late. Both politically and for the 50 million without health care. n/t

[Indydem]

2. What difference does it make? This plan leaves 37 million in the dark anyway. n/t

[lindisfarne]

3. Did you read the link? It says nothing about 37 million. Are you thinking of the incomplete

Kennedy proposal, which was an incomplete plan when evaluated by the CBO (the plan wasn't to leave 37 million uninsured but all the details hadn't been worked out at that point?)

In fact, even if true, the answer is simple: adjust until all are covered.

[Better Believe It]

4. What a House "compromise" with the Senate in conference might look like

1. No "public option" until 2016 at the earliest under a 7 year "trigger" and no Medicare plus rates or government start-up funding and a health care benefits tax, a national sales tax and other taxes that will mainly impact working middle class people. Tens of millions will still not have healthcare coverage.

2. No "public option", mandatory private insurance and just about everything else demanded by the health care industry, Republican Senators and Democratic bi-partisan "centrists".

3. Or something even worse that will simply line the pockets of the for profit health care industry.

This or something like the above will come to pass unless President Obama, Senate Democrats and House Democrats hit the road and begin fighting for a strong public option. Rahm Emanuel used his "sharp elbows" to browbeat Democrats into supporting more war funding. Will President Obama employ his services and use his own influence to get Democrats on board with the public option?

That's not being a "dictator" as some suggest. That's called presidential leadership. It's what LBJ demonstrated when he took on the health insurance industry and their political whores in Congress in order to get Medicare passed.

72% of the people want a public plan. Will the Democratic leadership listen to the people or follow the dictates of big business?

[Donnachaidh]

5. These jokers actually THINK people are going to wait till 2013?

WTF? ALL the incumbents had better get off their knees in front of Big Pharma and the AMA and realize people are going to vote their lying asses out in the next election. The way they set these bills up to *supposedly* assure their next election is disgusting.

[Oregone]

11. Yes

The cheerleaders think the Chess Master is in control for the best of all possible worlds

[sisters6]

6. This is not the real public option--its just made to appear like it is and

folks are falling for it.

[Better Believe It]

7. You mean they might water it down more? That wouldn't surprise me!

So what year do you think it will kick in under this House draft?

[Oregone]

12. Heh...and who knows if the legislation would be change 3 years later to obliterate it

[BanzaiBonnie]

8. The Republicans are trying to run the clock out...

You DO understand that the world ends in 2012, so they figure they'll be safe.:nuke:

[Better Believe It]

10. This unfortunately is the House Democratic proposal. Let's hope they drop it.

[Joanne98]

9. Bastards!

[sisters6]

13. "It took the Obama position as the left edge of the debate.",,,,

have you seen this. good article.


Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject The Policy That Dare Not Speak Its Name - Medicare for All
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5898631#5898631
5898631, The Policy That Dare Not Speak Its Name - Medicare for All
Posted by slipslidingaway on Mon Jun-22-09 04:46 PM

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/the_policy_that_dare.php

"Robert Kuttner
The Huffington Post
June 22, 2009

I’m sure I’m not the only reader who noticed the juxtaposition of two front page stories in Sunday’s New York Times dealing with health care. The first article cited a new Times-CBS poll showing that 72 percent of Americans favored a government run health plan comparable to Medicare, which would be available to everyone.

The second reported on a rogue radiologist at a Philadelphia VA hospital who botched 92 prostate procedures...


However, that’s only the beginning of the story. The reform package, as drafted by the Obama administration and the House leadership, is dubious legislation even with the inclusion of a public option. Basically, it leaves the two worst aspects of the system intact. First, private insurers will continue to dominate. Second, most people will continue to get their insurance through their employers...


Indeed, the Sunday New York Times-CBS poll didn’t even offer Medicare-for-All as a free-standing option. It took the Obama position as the left edge of the debate.

As for that rogue doctor at the Philadelphia veterans’ hospital, quality control is not what it should be throughout our fragmented system. And the oases of public medicine are particularly starved for resources. Yet studies consistently find that on average, the VA does more with less than its private sector competitors. Phil Longman has written the definitive book on the subject, “Best Care Anywhere.” Here is a summary.

In this case, the offending radiologist, Dr. Gary D. Kao, was actually a contract employee and not a VA physician.

Only by having a comprehensive system can we marry quality, cost-effective care, and universal access. One of these days, a national leader will have the nerve to embrace national health insurance and fight for it. Until then, we will keep paying more money for less care, and liberals will defend reforms they themselves scarcely believe in."

[Better Believe It]

14. For weekday DU'ers

[Thrill]

15. Its clear just like with Gitmo closing. Democrats are leaving Obama out there by himself on the

Public Option