The private insurance industry and its spokespeople in Congress are frantically making the argument that for health care reform to last and have the support of the American people, Congress must pass a "bi-partisan" health care reform plan.
Of course you never heard a word about "bi-partisanship" from the insurance industry or Republicans when they passed the notorious "Medicare Part D" prescription drug plan in 2003. Back then, they froze Democrats out of all negotiations, and passed the bill on a 220 to 215 vote in the House (with only 16 Democrats voting yes). In fact, Medicare Part D would be their idea of a "good" health care "reform": taxpayer subsidies for private insurers with no competition from a public plan. And if we went that route, the results of health care reform would look pretty much like the results of Part D as well - no cost control, giant gaps in coverage, and confusing options for consumers.
Now that the political tide has turned, and last year's economic collapse has given voters a fresh lesson in the consequences of turning public policy over to corporate CEOs and insurance giants like AIG, the Republicans and insurance companies have had an eleventh-hour conversion to the benefits of "bipartisanship" when it comes to health care reform.
It's no surprise then that in the current debate, the advocates of this position have made it clear that, to them, "bi-partisanship" means one thing: Americans should be denied the choice of a public health insurance option like Medicare. Their problem is that while a public health insurance option may not have bi-partisan support in Congress, it has big time bi-partisan support among the voters.
In fact, of course, it won't matter one whit to average Americans whether the bill passed by Congress is "bi-partisan." What will matter is that:
In the current context, there is no way to provide these things without also providing us with the choice of a public health insurance plan that would compete with private insurance companies, and keep them honest.
Average Americans know that they have been at the mercy of private health insurers for too long. After the health care mess that they have created, insurance companies can hardly expect everyday voters would be real keen about handing them the exclusive right to provide health insurance to everyone in America who is ineligible for Medicare, Medicaid or Veteran's benefits.
A poll conducted earlier this year by the highly respected Lake Research Partners found that voters overwhelmingly want everyone to have a choice of private health insurance or a public health insurance plan (73%), while just 15% prefer everyone having private health insurance.
And the preference for a choice between public and private health insurance plans extends across all demographic and partisan groups, including Democrats (77%), Independents (79%) and Republicans (63%). So in fact, President Obama's proposal that creates a choice of a public health insurance option is a bi-partisan plan - whether is has "bi-partisan" support in Congress or not.
Because of the budget rules passed by Congress, Obama doesn't actually need any Republicans to pass a health care reform bill. The rules allow passage without a filibuster, by a simple majority - which in the Senate means 50 votes and a vice-presidential tie breaker. That would allow passage of a truly effective health care reform plan even while losing all Republicans and 10 Democratic Senators.
Of course in this political environment that won't happen. They may squeal on their way to the vote, but in the end most Democrats and some Republicans will almost certainly feel the heat of public opinion and vote for health care reform when the chips are down.
The president's principles - which were outlined in a letter to the Senate last week - have broad support among most Democrats in both houses, notwithstanding adamant insurance industry opposition to a public health insurance plan.
The few isolated Democratic opponents in both Houses have never advanced solid policy arguments in opposition to giving Americans the choice of a public health insurance plan. The closest they've come is a frail argument that many private insurers couldn't compete. That line of argument ignores two facts:
What they're really worried about is that in order to compete they would have to cut massive CEO salaries like the $26 million Cigna paid last year to its CEO - a figure that is 65 times higher than the salary paid to the CEO of the Federal Government - President Obama. Insurance companies are worried that they would have to become more efficient and cut their profit margins in order to compete. Of course from the point of view of the taxpayer, that is one of the major goals of health care reform: to control skyrocketing costs and incentivize efficiency instead of waste.
The other argument advanced by the few Democrats who oppose a public health insurance option is the fallacious notion that it is not popular in their districts. In fact, Republicans and Independent voters are almost as sick of being at the mercy of private insurance companies as Democrats. The idea of providing consumers with a choice of a public health insurance option is popular in Arkansas and Kansas - as it's popular in Illinois and New York. It's popular in rural areas and urban areas.
The Obama plan for health care reform has massive bi-partisan support throughout the United States. Let's get busy making sure that it becomes the law of the land whether the insurance companies and the Republicans in Congress support it or not.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com
The public option standing alongside the existing employer-provided private health insurance plans is confusing and will result in a "trigger"as a compromise.
A universal, single payer system can be sold as making the best sense from a practical, hard-nosed business standpoint. It is fiscally responsible when consumers of all political stripes are struggling for ways to cut their expenses. Health care is big business.Single-payer actually mirrors the way big business is run, by merging, consolidating and downsizing, and spreading the costs of operating over a huge network. Single payer restores the doctor-patient relationship, stretches the middle class consumer dollar, spreads the cost over an entire consumer base, and ends the current politically horse-traded system that subsidizes one group at the expense of another group.
Taxpayers have been turned into a giant venture capital fund that finances the for profit health care industry. They are entitled to single payer as a return on their investment, not as a handout, not as a welfare benefit, but because they earned it the old fashioned way – they paid for it, they financed it.
T health care to the lowest cost,
Yet they do not want the people of US to choose an affordable plan (single payer) vs a insurance co, which most uninsured cant afford. If the ins co offered an affordable plan then this would not be an issue.
How many people are STUCK in jobs and marriages they dislike because of the fear of loosing health benefits? Let the repug show how concerned they are with this ins. crisis.
Without a public option to choose from, we are all slaves to this industry. Demand a public option of HR-676 from your representatives, if they fail to deliver, vote them out--from the President on down.
http://www.pnhp.org/change/
LIFE is a terrible thing to WASTE on PROFITS of PRIVATE "healthcare" INSURANCE!
My treatment for a broken wrist last fall/winter...
3 hrs in emergency room
3 hrs outpatient open reduction surgery
5 visits to orthopedic doctor
19 hrs physical therapy on wrist/hand
12 hrs physical therapy on shoulder
Total $44,801.29 (thus far)
BC/BS paid $44,230.13
I paid $571.16
CHA-CHING! ... obvious price gouging and gaming the system that IS broken and NEEDS reform!!!
I wouldn't have been able to afford this without EMPLOYER-paid coverage. NOBODY'S LIFE should be at the MERCY of their EMPLOYER!!! The world needs ditch-diggers too ... and THEY SHOULD ALSO have ACCESS to EQUAL healthcare!
I'd be willing to bet my treatment would have been LESS THAN HALF that amount in CIVILIZED countries that make PEOPLE and PEACE their PRIORITY!
A CATASTROPHIC injury or CHRONIC illness in this country would certainly CHA-CHING into MORE Americans losing EVERYTHING including their LIVES!
http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/05/15/lets_compare_public_and_private_health_care_costs_eh
http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/05/21/lets_spread_the_risk_i_mean_health_care_not_flu
http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/03/29/health_care_comparison_universal_vs_us_-_part_ii
Fact is, most medical practitioners and the majority of their potential patients in this country want a single-payer option! All this current propaganda is just that..baloney! No one is saying that, if you're dumb enough, you can't still go with your private plan. To each his own. But don't you dare tell me I have to be robbed blind by the insurance "industry", when they're about the most inefficient, corrupt lot to come down the pike ever! The nerve of Raucus Baucus and Grassholey and their ilk for trying to throw a wrench in the works, especially since they get their insurance paid for by the taxpayer! This isn't going away, fellas..get used to it!
This makes me wonder, again, of the power structure in this country.
Had McCain been elected, I wouldn't expect single-payer to be considered. But with Obama, who has supported single-payer, and a Democratic House and Senate, and it's not even on the table....
Who's running the show?
The United States has "socialized" many things, like highways, public schools and old age pensions. All of these things are freely available, are well financed by the public sector, and are of great benefit to the nation's economy and the well being of the people. The time has come to "socialize" personal medical care.
The corporate scheme is to minimize services and charge the max that the market will bear. This works well in many ways, but we see corporations, though they serve, do not exist to serve but to gather profits. The example of GM is that it profits while the economy is strong. When the economy weakens, we see them reducing dealerships, closing factories and laying people off. That is, their business model builds plentiful things for a buying public, but it depends on the inherent strength of the public economy and worsens it when it goes bad. This is fine for cars, but not for matters of life and death.
Anything else is a sham. They want us all doing ten types of paperwork and then paying for supplemental coverage for the supplemental coverage and ten new secretaries in the Doctor's office to figure it all out.
Single-payer now!
rainjustice.com
I was diagnosed with cancer last summer. Since then my insurance has gone up drastically. When I took out the policy they said they would never cancel me. However they did not say they would begin to price me out if I got an illness like cancer, etc.
Congress needs to understand where the country is right now. We pay their very good health insurance policy costs and yet they refuse to help us get coverage at reasonable rates. I think we should all begin protesting them and ask them to give up their coverage till they see we are dying without affordable coverage ourselves. My insurance company refused to pay for a medication that stopped the nausea and vomitting due to chemo. The medication was almost a hundred dollars a pill and I would have to take 6 of them per month during chemo sessions. I guess they simply didn't care if I could not tolerate the chemo - it was only my life I was fighting for. I'll bet the policy that Congress has pays for that medication for them if they had to have chemo.
Greedy fat cat Insurance CO's exist for one purpose. To make billions at our expense.
The more they ' refuse' to cover us - the more profit they make. If we can get a 'public' option for health care this time around - then we can ' segway ' into single payer..
I'm so sorry about your cancer.
Yes, let's protest. On June 25th there will be a protest in downtown Washington DC.
Hang in there, I hope you get well soon.
Everyone-- demand HR-676 MEDICARE FOR ALL who want it.
http://www.pnhp.org/change/