GOP Representative Worried That Public Option Has Lower Costs, "Advantages"

The public option. Polls indicate that the American people are head over heels in love with the public option. And the preliminary scoring from the Congressional Budget Office gives some indication why: the early word is that a "strong public option--the kind that the House of Representatives is putting in its reform bill--should net somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion in savings over ten years. "

But, via Brian Beutler at TPM comes the news that at least one GOP opponent of the measure still has grave concerns. Minnesota Representative John Kline recently went on Minnesota Public Radio to despair over the way the public option would save his constituents money:

"There are some things in this legislation that I find particularly troublesome," Kline told Minnesota Public Radio. Specifically, he was thinking of the public option. "[O]ur fear is that if you actually get in there looking at the legislation that it's set up in a way that employers would increasingly opt to letting their employees move over to the public, to the public option. And because it is cheaper, it's designed to save money, which the government-run program has some very clear advantages, and the claims that it's gotta pay for itself that through the first three years of this there would be government subsidies."

[Listen to full clip here.]

Beutler adds: "I assume that public opinion polling must show overwhelmingly that Americans want to pay more for health care so that insurance companies don't have to contend with a superior, cheaper competitor. Otherwise it's hard to understand Kline's statements anything other than a call to subsidize insurance companies--and no elected official would ever stand for that." Well, if the conservadem coalition is successful at preventing the public option from taking advantage of Medicare's below market rates, it seems to me that the insurance companies may yet obtain their subsidy.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[StillAmused]

Eureka!

A Republican has done the math!

Alert the media!

[naewing]

Did anyone hear NPR's interview of the chief medical officer of Wellpoint this morning? He explained why a public option was not a good idea and the private insurance industry is best equipped to improve the health care system. It was creepy, but that might just have been his tone of voice.

[Raccoon1]

Government competition? Are Federal Express and United Parcel Service and others doing OK with the competition from the Federally operated United States Post Office? I think so.

[StillAmused]

A charming bit of sophistry that fails to address precisely what advantage lies in the glaring overhead (payroll, benefits, executive perks, physical plant, dividends, advertising, etc.) of for-profit private insurance... not to mention the overarching motivation to deny payments wherever possible.

[rxvette]

Why are politicians fearing cost savings? Because they would see campaign losses from their health care industry lobbying groups!

Read this to find out more about successful health care reform - http://bit.ly/9QLV8

[zanzig]

"And because it is cheaper, it's designed to save money, which the government-run program has some very clear advantages, and the claims that it's gotta pay for itself that through the first three years of this there would be government subsidies."

Are they all unable to speak English?

[spandautoseattle]

Even smarter individuals than this Republican Representative would have difficulties to consistently lie about a) the "advantages" of the present criminally negligent, dysfunctional system and b) the urgent necessary, internationally proven, working public health care system that the former GOP tries to prevent.

[StillAmused]

Lower cost?

No corporate profits?

Lawd, we cain't have that!

[Antifascist-08]

Keep up the pressure. I think they are starting to snap.

[Biscuit]

So... the Republicans would prefer a plan that had higher costs and no advantages?

That seems about on par for them.

[wideawakenow]

Ok, how about if I use WTH(eck)? We'll try this again.
So the GOP that claims to be in love with free market competition is trying to protect corporations that line their pockets because they don't want a truly competitive option for consumers. WTH(eck) are these people smoking? (How's that? Still too much)

[wideawakenow]

So the GOP that claims to be in love with free market competition wants to protect corporations that line their pockets from competitive options for the consumer. WTF are these people smoking..

[S1m0n]

What's so startling is how they appear to not understand how surreal and how corrupt they sound when they say things like 'the problem is that the public might get a better product that costs less'.

[dutt]

Yeah, I'd call cheaper a clear advantage. So what's the problem with that Mr. Kline?

[Gatormouth]

The Public Option of course is a run away first choice. But, there is a chance conservatives could put in a poison pill to dump "problem" costly patients into the public plan, jacking costs for the program. No reduction of multiple billing costs, etc. The best solution wold be a single payer public plan for the insurance, and choice for the provider, but if it must be multiple option,at least put in guide lines requiring the plans total care of their own. NO DUMPING or denial for pre-existing conditions. Level the playing field for all plans! Then, game on!!

[bola47]

of course i want to pay more for less. congress is in the hip pocket of the health lobbyists and will fight tooth and nail to prevent passage of any cost savings and increased benefits for all americans. everyone in the house and senate should have their publicly funded health for life policies suspended until we get the same plan.

[layman]

This country is being run on a legalized corruption doctrine, otherwise known as lobbying, or in other countries known as bribery. If the layers and layers of political artificial corruption are gotten rid of, every thing will run amazingly more efficient and at a amazingly reasonable price. Corruption is the root cause of the social and societal problems.

[DannyDanson]

Exactly, government per se is not the problem in and of itself as some would have us believe while they profit politically and financially from our cynicism, the real problem is the shady intersection between government and the lobbying wings of corporate America, lobbying Government is a company's right, but they have no right to use their resources and access to socialize their business risks to consumers and tax payers, while simultaneously fighting to privatize their own profit margins, gain access to tax-funded subsidies, regulate themselves from within their own industry, weasel out of their tax requirements, and scheme with foriegn financial institutions to hide even more profits out of view of the American public, don't be fooled government is the only institution capable of protecting our society from the onset of plutocracy, corporatism and the rise of an America INC. ran by boards of directors and the interest of the top 1%. Healthcare should be driven by the desire to facilitate the healthiest, most productive and secure civil society possible, not by some supply-side driven derective to increase corporate profit margins by any means necessary, those who argue robotically for the strategic de-funding of the people's elected Government through countless tax cuts for the wealthiest among us are facilitating the Corporatism that has means of checks and balancing.