Lying, intransigent Republicans plus cowardly Senate Democrats is a witches' brew for stalemate on healthcare reform. The same posturing pompous politicians who celebrate the courage of the Iranian people asserting their public will against the mullahs shrivel into whining, doubting pusillanimity when they have to..to...to....vote to serve the clear choice of ~70% of the American people for a public option in healthcare.
By this time the President knows that Senate Republicans will pretend bipartisanship until the 11th hour, and then vote as their ayatollahs in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries tell them. They will use the public option, or the mere possibility of a public option, as the excuse. It will be framed as a "federal takeover of healthcare".
Democrats have two choices. Get a backbone transplant, or provide the Republicans an offer they cannot refuse (or, if they do, they get trounced in 2010). Since a backbone transplant may or may not 'take', here is the offer they can't refuse:
Define and provide funding for the public option as if the insurance and pharmaceutical ayatollahs had gone off to Argentina to work on family values, i.e., define and fund it as if the public plan would have smooth sailing. Then, make the inclusion of the public plan optional on a state-by-state basis, i.e., no federal mandate to offer it in any given state.
At that point, state politics will prevail. If Mark Sanford needs a public option to pay for his Viagra, then the South Carolina legislature will vote to allow the public option into the State, and Sanford--with a gleam in his eye--will sign the bill. If, on the other hand, Sanford's trip was his last tango, then perhaps it would be vetoed.
In Washington state it would become an instant ballot initiative, and the people could vote it up or down (no Viagra pun intended here). Federalism prevails.
It will be absolutely delicious to watch Governors Pawlenty, Palin, Perry and Barbour (the only difference between "P" and "B" is the latter is voiced, so he fits) squirm as this issue is pushed onto their states' agendas. Will they support including the public plan in their states' insurance plan options...or, will they be kneeling and bowing to their mullahs of moolah?
An additional little twist: whatever a state decides will be its insurance plan options should be the only options available to Members of Congress and Senate from that State. It will be downright delectable to watch these members do what Representative Inglis did on the $787B stimulus--vote against it with righteous indignation and then plead with his Governor to take it because "it may help"!
We can have our public plan, and have fun in 2010 to boot.
The issue of public option is one more corporate welfare measure designed to bailout the private insurance industry, by taking all of the toxic patients and placing the cost of delivering healthcare to them on taxpayers. Single payer healthcare is the solution, as evidenced by visiting any country of choice. Americans do not tolerate corporate welfare. It's time to eliminate healthcare insurance companies, once and for all.
rights.
They only believe in States rights when they feel totally confident the states
will follow their wishes.
For example, they believe in States rights to ban abortion, because they are confident
most states will be stricter than the federal government on abortions.
But, when it comes to restrictions on firearms they dont want the states to have the right to
make their own decisions on gun restrictions.
That's why they are angry with Judge Sotomayor:
she ruled that the 2nd amendment (thus far) has not been applied to the states,
by the Supreme Court; and she is correct-that is the current state of the law.
(DC is not a state)
thus at this time, states are free to make their own laws on firearms.
But republicans dont like it. They don't trust states to have that right.
But they trust states to have the right to regulate abortion.
The GOP cant have it both ways with State's rights, but they certainly would like
to have it both ways..
Those of us who favor it believe that its existence will bring down the costs of premiums (in this proposal, in states that have it).
see below some of my other comments, it explains what is going on.
This means all the liberal states will have health cares, and all the hardcore conservative states won't. And... the only way for them to EVER get free health care will be to start electing liberals into office.
And likewise, you will see businesses start to flee from Red States, since smart companies will prefer to dump all the expense involved in health care. Likewise, you will start seeing the smart people leave Red States for the health care.
Blue States win all around- we get health care, jobs, and "brain drain". Red States will be left with nothing... and the people who hold out will eventually vote the health care obstructionists out of office.
Two strikes with one pitch. Brilliant.
The question is whether there is a more rational way to pay for it. The public plan does not have built into it the administrative costs the private plans have. Medicare is less than 5%.
To save money, one has to improve the delivery of healthcare. For example, 10% of medicare recipients consume 67% of the annual costs. That's an opportunity to improve their overall health, and reduce costs. This isn't the place to explain how that happens, but it can--and in pilot projects, it does.
The public plan is "merely" another insurance option to be offered in the states, or not if, under this proposal, a state says "no" to the public plan. The costs in that state will, in my estimate, go up, but if the state, in its wisdom, decides it doesn't care, or that it will be less expensive, they can do that.
This is NOT a system where the government will actually be dispensing health care, as it does in the military or the Veterans Administration. It is an insurance plan that will pay, like other insurance plans, for covered care, as Medicare does today.
Some states will definitely sign on, others (mostly in the South, where I live) won't because of fearmongering about "socialism" and other right-wing boogeymen.
A nation-wide public health insurance option is the ONLY way that it will work. Giving the states the option of implementing it or not will only create a piecemeal system in which one's access to health insurance will depend on the state in which one lives.
Enough already with this "state's rights" crap. Let states work out LOCAL issues an have the Federal government deal with issues that affect ALL Americans.
If my proposal were adopted, then only states that had agreed to include this public plan would make it one of the options offered by insurance providers in their state. It would work precisely the same way as if the whole country had it.
It is not a matter of "implementation" by the states, but rather agreeing to its availablity to its citizens.
I wouldn'dt get too exercised about your state--like the stimulus, everyone (even those who opposed it) want to take it. My proposal changes the politics and, if some states decided not to offer it, lots of people would start moving elsewhere or kick out those who denied it to them.
That is exactly how to NOT implement a successful system.