Health Insurance Reform Must Include Public Option

A majority of Americans support a public option. An overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress support a public option. Doctors support a public option. Why then is the public option seen by some as the third rail of health insurance reform?

We know the disturbing facts by heart: Millions of Americans are one illness -- or one pink slip -- away from bankruptcy because of high health care costs and lack of access to affordable insurance. 30 million Americans are without health insurance. Nearly 400 Ohioans lose their insurance every day.

Middle class families pay $1,000 annually in hidden taxes to recoup the cost of care for our nation's uninsured.

When you look at the plan on its merits, the opposition makes little sense. It saves money. It will be available everywhere in the country -- providing reliable, affordable, quality health care to those in need. It injects competition into a marketplace that in most parts of the country is dominated by one or two companies.

What will happen if we hand over taxpayer-funded subsidies to the insurance industry and rely on them to cover all Americans? Insurers will demand higher and higher subsidies each year. Why wouldn't they? It's called profit maximization. After all, these are the same companies that pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars each year while millions of Americans go without any health insurance.

A strong public option means competition for private insurance companies. It means coverage continuity in every part of the country. It means health insurance reform that ensures affordable access to coverage for every American.

I have held nearly 140 roundtables across Ohio in the last two years, and half a dozen health care town halls and events in the last two months. I have heard story after story of individuals and families who can't afford to buy insurance -- and can't afford not to. They watch their savings drain away as their health care costs soar.

The insurance industry has been in business for nearly a hundred years, and it has not managed to cover all Americans. Instead of wishing the insurance market would change, we need to change it. That's what the public option would do.

Progress rarely comes easily. It took a united Democratic party, committed to change, to establish Social Security and Medicare -- progressive milestones that pulled seniors out of poverty and increased Americans' life expectancy. Progressive milestones that were staunchly opposed by Congressional Republicans.

The public option is the moral compass of health reform. In the last 100 years, Democrats have yet to be on the wrong side of progressive reform.

Let's not start now.

Comments

[krocklin]

Part 2 of my comment: Our situation has created so much uncertainty and stress our health has been afffected. And our health insurance system only makes this anxiety worse.

[krocklin]

I am afraid that the emergence of China as a producer of so many of our inexpensive goods, has reduced chances that jobs are going to be created to compete with them.
Their currency manipulation and government subsidation has made us unable to compete with good paying jobs or jobs at all often, except for the fortunate.

[lizbethbrown]

I am amazed at what is being called "sweeping" health reform these days. Congress can NOT require us to purchase health insurance from private companies - the same private companies that have treated us like crap for the last two decades. It just won't happen. I won't buy it.

A Real Plan Needs:

1. A public option, funded through pooled tax revenues available to all Americans
2. The ability for people to purchase additional coverage through private insurance plans
3. An opt out plan for people who wish to purchase their entire health insurance through private companies

Simple. Get it together Congress!

[1010TRAVIS]

what poll is he going by that says the " majority of Americans support the public option" I want to find it on the Internet. with congress having a whopping 21 percent approval rating, with democrats occupying the majority, I find that a flat out lie. somebody help me!

[newmillace]

Until recently I lived in Sen. Browns district and was proud to have him represent me. I look forward to someday voting for him again for President in 2016

[chayefsky]

Senator Sherrod, thank you for listening to the desires of the voting public. The Public Option is not optional for true healthcare reform to take place. The large corporations and banks have no problem asking for handouts from the American people when they want to save their own necks, but they howl "Socialism" whenever the American people want to use their own tax dollars to help themselves. It's time the federal government sends a message to the insurance industry that it will no longer be business as usual.

[chayefsky]

Oops! Sorry. I meant to say Senator Sherrod Brown.

[Poorsarah]

Senator Sherrod Brown; thank you for standing for real healthcare reform. Yes, the majority of we the people strongly support a robust public option. Any healthcare bill that is watered down and does not include a strong public option for the American people...it is not real reform. Please encourage President Obama to VETO any healthcare bill that does not include a strong public option.

[themainpoint]

Senator Brown. It seems one way for you to push a true public option-- if ANYthing comes up for a vote--would be to let the public know that President Obama has a ton of leverage:

2/3 of the public wants a real public option that makes the anti-competitive health care industry more competitive & fair. And if Congress does not include a true public option, President Obama can veto the bill.

If the president were to veto a bill that contains no true public option, then 2/3 of our representatives would have to show they don't want a meaningful public option in order to override the veto and make any insufficient reform into law.

So the representatives who are standing in the way of change and what their voters want, will have to identify themselves when they override the veto--- to a public that is actually watching carefully for a change.

If Congress passes nothing, that's against their interests, too, because the public saw our current representatives manage to pass trillion dollar bailouts for Main Street Banks in no time, but the same Congress will have shown it refuses to muster up enough votes on behalf of the what Main Street citizens want.

The public attention on this gives President Obama enormous power if an insufficient bill comes up for a vote.

That said, between you and Kaptur, maybe I'll have to move to Ohio!

[Davonne Rushing]

Senator Brown, no matter what you do, we're still not going to win. Neither Sen. Baucus, Sen. Reid, or Sen Conrad will fight for true reform. All they care about is their elections and their corporate friends. I bet we won't get any real reform when this bill is passed. No competition, no lower premiums, nothing. Why? Because Democrats are WEAK!!!

[undecidedaboutPOTUS]

Senator Brown,
thank you for you comments and support of a robust public option.

Please include the following in your work
remove the anti-trust exemption for the insurance industry.
The insurance industry, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, has a broad anti-trust exemption that has facilitated regional monopolies.
The Act allows states to regulate the insurance business instead of the federal government, but also allows that, as long as the state regulates the industry, federal anti-trust laws would not apply.

Please work to change that anti-trust exemption -- removing that exemption will help make that industry competitive --- and will also help all Americans achieve affordable health care.

[DonRoberto]

Repealing McCarran would mean regulating the insurance industry at the federal level, which would necessarily involve the creation of a large federal bureaucracy to do so. While that may be advisable, a complete reorganization of the insurance industry is beyond the scope of the current healthcare reform initiative.

A public option, on the other hand, is the least intrusive method of establishing real reform. It provides competitive pressure at the low end of the market; it provides those with no healthcare the minimum care necessary; and it provides consumers a *choice*, something they haven't had yet. And if necessary, it can even be built upon the existing Medicare model.

There are other provisions that enjoy broad support in Congress, but the public option is the most important to making any kind of real progress on access to healthcare and control of costs. Repeal of McCarran, on the other hand, must involve the creation of new federal bureaucracies to replace the current state commissions, and would be a major reorganization of the entire insurance industry.

Opponents of reform already accuse Democrats of wanting to "rule by fiat". Let's not give them more ammunition.

[undecidedaboutPOTUS]

Interesting points DR,
IMO we may only get one "bite at the apple" and I believe the anti-trust reform is important,

Also the methodology for documenting the lack of competition and pursuit of it by the DOJ exists.

Using the Herfindahl­/Hirschman Index, a metric for market concentration, a 2007 study by the AMA found almost every health insurance market in the United States is highly concentrated.
Thus, still recommend reforming the exemption from Federal Anti-Trust legislation contained in the Clayton and Sherman Acts.

[Poorsarah]

Evidently, the healthcare industry makes no real effort to regulate themselves; they deal unscrupulously with their customers...to them, it's all about billions more at the cost of human lives dying because of healthcare being denied or rationed. Simply slapping the industry on the wrist and telling them not to do it again will not work...the rationing and denying of healthcare is happening under our current failing heathcare system. Crossing the state lines of insurance firms to create competition SOUNDS like a plausible idea...except all that the private insurance companies would have to do in the "state lines" scenario is conolidate their businesses and continue to raise costs to their customers beyond their means of being able to afford healthcare. The only viable way to keep private insurance companies honest and accountable toward their customers is to offer a strong public option for those who wish to choose it...this will create real competition and keep costs lower and affordable for both private and public insurance. If healthcare costs continue to rise because of no regulation or real competition, then healthcare facilities will continue to lose customers and layoffs or closings of healthcare facilities will be a result of letting the private insurance firms run roughshod over people.

[jan4insight]

Sen. Brown, I've seen you many times on Countdown and RachelM show, and I always admire your persistence and dedication in the face of the corporate-­greed-driv­en roadblocks they constantly put in our path. You are one of the stalwart defenders of the people, and I salute and thank you for that!

[Alablanca]

ABSOLUTELY! - THE PUBLIC OPTION MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE HEALTH CARE REFORM PLAN - IT'S THE ONLY WAY THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN COSTLY INSURANCE COMPANIES AND GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. REMEMBER, MEDICARE IS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND IT WORKS VERY WELL!

[jws2346]

Thanks for the article Senator Brown, your constituents are lucky to have you.. I admire you for talking till' you're blue in the face tryin' to reason with these individuals. Sometimes I think you'd be better off talkin' to a rock. There are still some us out here in the bushes watchin' your back and the other brave Dems. (although I can say the smokes is gettin' kind of thick)

[hernan1333]

Does anyone know why it would or would not make sense to allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines which is the republicans answer to the public option? Personally believe in public option but never hear dems counter this repub argument when asked...

[mummblemouth]

Race to the bottom. Insurance is regulated at the state level so insurers would more to the states with the fewest regulation­s/safeguar­ds for the consumer. To combat the loss of business other states will deregulate and it will create a feedback system that forces further and further deregulation until the insurance companies can do anything they like. Like when the credit card companies were deregulated it will be a competition who can sell the least coverage for the highest premium/co­pay/deduct­ible. Thus, it will not contain costs and will result in a lesser product. This of course could be circumvented if the federal government did away with state to state regulation and set all the rules of the road, and some of that is happening (no pre-existing conditions for example) but try selling the idea of comprehensive federal regulation of the insurance industry to their republican (and democratic) shills. Or, if this occurred in conjunction with a public option that was open to everyone (and preferably based on medicare rates) it might contribute to cost containment, but as the republicans outline it's a horrible idea.

[DonRoberto]

Another good argument.

[hernan1333]

thanks .

[JustBNice]

Why do the Republicans want some corporate entity known as the insurance industry skimming off billions and not allowing people access to medical care when they truly need it ??

We are paying way too much for health insurance, and the Republicans want to keep it that way.

It will only get worse if the insurance industry is left to it's ways.

[jws2346]

That's the 64 thousand dollar question. When you find the answer please post it.

[DonRoberto]

Republicans want whatever their contributors want. They view campaign contributions from corporations and PACs as a form of "freedom of speech", so those who contribute the most, get their interests looked after first.

This fits hand-in-glove with their stated belief in the "wisdom of the market". Individual Republicans have other interests, and there are a few who hold more populist ideas, but for the most part, all of the rest is window dressing. Republicans want whatever their contributors want.

[boomer1949]

I love my Senator from OHIO...Sherrod Brown...principles, values, and common sense.