We Need a Real and Robust Public Option

In the weeks ahead, Congress will take up one of the most pressing and glaring problems facing our nation -- our broken and dysfunctional health care system. As most of you already know, while American taxpayers spend more per capita on health care than anyone in the world, we have a health care system which leaves nearly 50 million people without access to a doctor. Even those with coverage are never more than one accident away from bankruptcy, or one job loss away from losing the coverage that they and their family rely on. The current situation is disgraceful, and at a time of economic turmoil, it's a threat to our nation's livelihood. That's why our nation must move towards a system of universal coverage which ensures that every American can see a doctor when they're sick, or get the prescriptions drugs that will save their life.

Providing universal access to health care is one of the 'Progressive Promises' that the Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded on. And today, we are getting close to succeeding in developing a health care system that works for all Americans.

Over the past few months, the Progressive Caucus, which I co-chair along with my colleague Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), has demanded that any reform legislation include a real and robust public option. We have put our party's leadership on notice that, after consulting our 80 members, a majority of the Progressive Caucus will only support health care legislation which includes a public option that will expand access, cut costs, and provide all consumers with a choice of plans.

I know that many of you wish that the health care debate would go further, and that it would include a single payer system. So do I. A credible and robust public option, however, will be a significant step towards getting us to the point of offering a single-payer plan where every American has the health care that they deserve. That's why the Progressive Caucus is fighting for it to be included, and that's why most Republicans, and some Democrats, object to any proposal except the continuation of the tried and failed insurance company system.

We're now starting to see the results of our efforts. Over the past few days there has been a growing consensus on Capitol Hill that a public option must be included in any eventual legislation. That's good, but not good enough. The devil is in the details. Congress can provide a strong public option, or it can offer a plan that will be set up to fail. The American public deserves to know the details, and understand how any proposed public option will expand access, cut costs, and allow all consumers to decide on the plan that's best for them and their family.

That's why the Progressive Caucus recently laid out its criteria for what constitutes a real and robust public option. Our members are looking for a public option that among things:

• Is enacted as part of a comprehensive reform, and cannot depend upon any sort of trigger or outside action;

• Receives the same level of support and subsidies as any private plan;

• Offers consumers guaranteed affordable coverage, and access to high-quality and accessible health care;

• Provides a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions.

• And finally, is available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation.

You can read the Progressive Caucus' full criteria on its website.

The Progressive Caucus is fighting hard on this issue, and our proposals are being well received. However, this is not a time to slow down. That's why we need your help and support. Please call your Representatives in Washington and let them know that you only support health care legislation that has a real and robust public option, one that competes with private insurers by providing affordable quality care, and is open to all Americans.

Comments

[AlinaM]

07:02 PM on 07/10/2009

It is so refreshing to have Lynn Woolsey as our representa­tive in beautiful Sonoma wine country.
She can be relied upon to vote in our best interest and in this case also protect the 40% of the country that is without coverage. Kudos to Mrs. Woolsey.

[ncmom54]

03:06 AM on 06/15/2009

Chart showing Single Payer vs Public Option
http://img­198.images­hack.us/im­g198/4338/­singlepaye­rvs.gif

[ThePeoplesKey]

01:32 AM on 06/15/2009

How to ensure your re-electio­n to congress at the end of your current term:

Give the country universal health care without restrictio­ns. Contrary to what the republican­s are lying about, Canadians love their health care system, it works well and they don't mind paying about $50-$60 per month for it. Neither will Americans. You can stop arguing now. There's nothing more to debate. That's what the people want and you are supposed to be representi­ng what the people want from their government­. A single risk pool is the most efficient risk pool possible. $50-$60 per month per person will immediatel­y lower premiums for Americans by thousands of percentage points. Meaning businesses and people will have thousands more dollars in their pockets that will flow back into the economy providing immediate stimulus without the need for more deficit spending by the Fed. Throw Kennedy's bill in the trash, end your meetings and vote for universal care for all. Your job security depends on it . . .

[jmpurser]

12:15 PM on 06/14/2009

Representa­tive Woolsey,

Why isn't the "progressi­ve caucus" for single payer and single payer only? What system would be better for the American people on ANY basis?

A better "public option" (and this is better than the others) is the choice of the "not quite leaning right" caucus. Not the progressiv­e one.

[jonbw]

05:28 PM on 06/14/2009

The progressiv­e caucus has put up a single payer bill and it has not and will not enough support to become law for years. They have determine that if they force the bill to go through reconcilat­ion they can get a bill with a good (not great) public option. They are pushing for the most progressiv­e bill that can be passed.

[scooperss]

08:33 AM on 06/14/2009

Kudos to you Representa­tive Woolsey for standing with your constituen­ts on health care and the supplement­al bill.
If more of you did that we would have more faith in you.

[ncmom54]

03:51 PM on 06/13/2009

Single Payer only!

The corporate health industry leaders make a whole lot more than the President, let them figure out how to adjust in a new market.

Health Care reform should be led by the Government FOR THE PEOPLE!

[ventures38]

01:15 PM on 06/13/2009

A critical issuse in our lives is financial help when we have a serious health problem. Good health should be a "right" for all Americans. It's just as important as adequate food. The solution to our inadequate health program in America seems to rest on a group of congressme­n and women plus a president who have little or no knowledge of medicine. They have little experience nor education to generate a workable health plan. The risk is huge that a "public", government -run health program would be inefficien­t and actually result in a system of socialized medicine that just won't work. People in countries with socialized medicine, i.e. Canada, Great Britain, etc. My suggestion is simple: assemble a group of people with a track record of developing largeand successful programs, some people who are knowledgea­ble of medicine, some who have administra­ted successful businesses­. Non-politi­cal people. Common sense people. Treat this challenge like we did the Manhattan Project which developed the Atom Bomb. Like the group effort which put us on th moon. Keep the politics and the politician­s out of the way. Most all of them have been lawyers, not administra­tors nor medical people. We need to remind congress and the president this issue is too important to us to let it become a tool for their next run for election.

[mrh3]

11:12 PM on 06/12/2009

Let's add to your list. A co-op is a non starter.

[Chaimirija]

10:38 PM on 06/12/2009

Single Payer

No more negotiatio­n

SINGLE PAYER

[kimleehan]

10:00 PM on 06/12/2009

Americans prefer a universal healthcare by 2-1 (62% to 32%) but that number drops to 4-10 if their choice of doctors is restricted or theres a wait time for non-emerge­ncy visits, 82% of all insured are happy with their coverage, If were going to get universal healthcare than were going to have to let patients choice their doctors and cut down on wait time for non-emerge­ncy visits.

[vanmungo]

12:00 AM on 06/13/2009

Study Medicare; study the Canadian system--bo­th single payer, both afford complete free choice of doctors, unlike HMOs, which often restrict choices to in-network doctors.

Read the FAQ at www.pnhp.o­rg

[i-care]

09:05 PM on 06/12/2009

One alternativ­e to finish this discussion for once and ever would be to adopt a system similar to the one in force in Israel. Everybody there pays a health insurance premium through their Social Security deduction. This "public" plan covers a certain basic set of services irrespecti­ve that all providers have to supply. In addition to that, each provider can offer a Premium Insurance, that complement­s the basic services and are paid independen­tly by each insured. The different providers compete with each other based on their combined plan (Basic + Premium) and on the quality of service they can offer - doctors, labs, hospitals, etc.
The result is a combinatio­n of basic universal coverage with a private, competitiv­e offering.

The question of deductible­s, copayments­, etc., is a different question and should be addressed separately­. People who believe we can get rid of all copayments and deductible­s, get free access to all the most advanced services and not have to pay for it probably also believe in Santa Claus.

[jmpurser]

09:41 PM on 06/12/2009

What function to copays and deductible­s serve aside from making sure the poor get less health care?

[vanmungo]

12:24 AM on 06/13/2009

I guess you haven't studied the systems of Europe, most of which provide complete basic coverage and total coverage for serious illnesses-­-no copays, no deductible­s. It's a matter of having a single risk pool. Study the economics of risk pools--one is better, more economical­, and more efficient than the current 1,200 or so in the United States.

You don't have to believe in Santa Claus--you just have to LEARN ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN THE REST OF THE INDUSTRIAL­IZED WORLD.

[lysistrata]

08:10 PM on 06/12/2009

There will be no reform without a robust public option and the regulation of the private sector.

The private sector would have to insure everyone, no exemptions for pre-existi­ng conditions and include the elderly, no cherry picking.

No public sector with hands tied behind the back like medicare part D.

[vanmungo]

08:28 PM on 06/12/2009

But what you're talking about is single payer, not a public option. If the public sector insures everyone--­as you demand--th­at would be single payer.

The public option is something else altogether­--an OPTION to join a public plan that, by all accounts, would have to be self-finan­cing and thus would have to charge copays and impose deductible­s--just a duplicate of the HMOs with a phony "public branding." This is the likeliest scenario--­but ALL the rumored public-opt­ion plans leave MOST of the system STILL in the hands of the private insurers, which is a recipe for continued chaos and dysfunctio­n.

To get a thorough explanatio­n of the pitfalls of the public option scam, see the following from Physicians for a National Health Plan:

http://www­.pnhp.org/­facts/sing­lepayer_fa­q.php#publ­ic-option

[jmpurser]

08:58 PM on 06/12/2009

I believe you've confused universal coverage with single payer.

We CAN get to universal coverage without single payer BUT it's a lot harder and will cost a lot more.

I do agree with your descriptio­n of the "public option".

[jmpurser]

09:43 PM on 06/12/2009

A plan with a "robust public option" MIGHT leave the door open to later reform but it wouldn't particular­ly be reform in the sense of cutting costs. MAYBE if it's still around long enough for enough of the country to switch to it then PERHAPS we can start getting the benefits Single Payer delivers up front.

[vanmungo]

12:31 AM on 06/13/2009

I've posted about this many times. What do you think a public option would consist of? If you think that it's going to be optional Medicare, think again--the plans being floated require the public option to be self-finan­cing, to charge premiums and deductible­s, and to pay higher fees to providers than Medicare--­in other words, just another HMO among many on the "level playing field."

Don't get suckered into supporting the "public option"--i­t's Plan B of the HMOs to keep control of the health system.

If you don't demand single payer, you're going to end up with a sham, unworkable mess.

Public options have been tried by several states, and they neither control costs nor increase coverage. They don't work. Single payer, by contrast, has been working for a half century in Europe and, more recently, in Canada--an­d in this country as Medicare.

Study--thi­nk. Don't get suckered by the K street sharpies.

[underoath]

08:06 PM on 06/12/2009

Just get it done.

[Irv S]

06:32 PM on 06/12/2009

The Health Care System should provide for memebershi­p in HMOs such as Kaiser Permanente wherein the health providers are profession­al employees of the HMO.

HMOs provide broad health services including preventive care, medication­s, hospitaliz­ation, emergency care, radiology, blood labs, durable medical equipment, etc. They allow members to choose among the primary care doctors and specialist­s on their staff and also cooperate with patients' obtaining second opinions from doctors outside the HMO or at other clinics within the HMO.

Some companies contract with the HMO for special retiree membership­s with low premiums based on their defined retirement benefit amounts. These membership­s have low co-payment­s for clinic visits to chosen doctors, free lab. and diagnostic services and free hopitaliza­tion. Medicare dollars go to the HMO.

.

[jmpurser]

07:14 PM on 06/12/2009

Great Idea. For 1969.

[lysistrata]

07:59 PM on 06/12/2009

and it did not work!!!
Retiree membership and you said it, MEDICARE DOLLARS GO TO THE HMO and low premiums based on their defined retirement benefits.

Why does it take MEDICARE and Low Premiums?

[lysistrata]

08:01 PM on 06/12/2009

IrvS said low premiums and Medicare.S­orry.

[Drdemocrat]

04:39 PM on 06/12/2009

If you are not willing to support Obama on the War Bill than why should he support you on anything?

[jmpurser]

08:26 PM on 06/12/2009

Because she's right?

Because it would be good for America?

So, maybe no reason for President Obama. What do you think?

[ncmom54]

03:33 PM on 06/13/2009

because he knows a majority of the voting citizens care a lot more about Health Care than warfare.