Fixing Health Care Does Not Require a "Bi-Partisan" Bill -- It Does Require a Public Health Insurance Option
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:
- Something gets passed.
- It provides health care for everyone.
- It puts the brakes on skyrocketing health care costs.
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:
- The point of health reform is to provide health care to all Americans, and to cut costs - not to benefit wasteful, inefficient private insurance companies that have become fat by gouging consumers and denying claims.
- If private insurers can't compete with an efficient public health insurance plan, they have no business being in the market place. After all, they would be the first to argue that the "private sector" is always more "efficient" than government.
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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you, Mr. Creamer, for expressing so well what I have been screaming to my walls and writing in letters to my representatives in Congress and Pres Obama for weeks!!!
The point of health care reform is to provide affordable, quality health care to all Americans, not to preserve the old system. If private insurance companies can't compete, let them die. And good riddance!!!
I am e-mailing your blog to the lunkheads who represent me in Washington and to Pres Obama.
Socialism didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work in the United States. China's economy didn't start to prosper until the country began to allow private ownership.
What socialized healthcare will do is allow the federal government to kill you. The stimulus bill already created a bureaucracy that gave the government the power to deny treatment in "low return" situations. The healthcare system in England already has this power and they have denied treatment for breast cancer. If no one has to pay for these treatments, the reason to continue research is removed and medical advancements will come to a standstill. Why spend the money on cancer research when you can just let people die?
When the feds pass cap and trade, give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and form a government owned healthcare company, more of your wealth, your right to life, and your freedom will be stripped from you and you will be less free than people in China and Russia. Sure, you will still be able to rant and rave in forums, but you will no longer have the economic power to do anything about what bothers you. You will think that you are lucky to survive day to day.
No one is talking about socialized medicine. We are talking about a public option along with your insurance option. I prefer the single payer, like a Medicare system. Socialism is where doctors work for the government and the government owns all the hospitals, etc. That is not what we are talking about here. Single payer we pay a system like Medicare rather than the insurance company. Eliminate the middle man and costs go down. Eliminate the multi-million dollar bonuses for CEO's - costs go down.
Now we have family that lives in England - they pay for breast cancer treatment. We have a family member fighting cancer right now who lives in Manchester. They are covered. They pay into the system by a deduction in their pay check and it's a lot less than what we pay for our insurance policy here.
Yes Exactly .
WEB smith YOu're falling for the GOP line - Oh my gosh - it's Socialism ! Call it what you want. .We are nothing like Russia. / Soviet Union. IS Medicare socialized medicine ? well - It works well for millions and costs a fraction what private CO's spend on admin costs. Canada / Europe / etc all havepublic health care- we already pay for the uninsured folks when they go to the emergency room for basic care. INS CO CEO"s take billions off the top. It does NOT make sense anymore. .
These knuckleheads who moan that single payer is socialism needs to get with the programme.
Mr Websmith trots out a tired old bogeyman, and wonder why no one cares any more. Dick Cheney belongs to the richest 'socialized' medical plan of them all, and is doing quite nicely.
If Mr Cheney TODAY tried to get private insurance, with his history of heart disease, he would be laughed out of the office. So too yourself, Mr 'Smith'. So too for diabetes, cancer, blood disorders, asthma, etc etc etc. You think this is a decent policy? Sheesh.
You failed to note that Canadians, with their system of universal single-payer coverage, live on average TWO YEARS longer than we do. It's not 'socialism', or any other childish insult you try to toss. It's common sense. Every other industrialized nation on the planet has adopted public health care. You're sticking with the GM and Chrysler model, I gather.
How many Americans have no health insurance? 46 MILLION. How many Canadians? Zero. Zip. Nada. And they live two years longer than we do... See a connection?
Probably not.
Excellent post The GOP & Cheney are just using FEAR TO control us- that what they do. Its their best weapon. But We have gotten way too smart for them
Socialized medicine has brought a longer, more productive life to Europeans and Canadians.
They live longer! Duh!
They're healthier! Duh!
And its less expensive! Double Duh!
There are a lot of countries in the world that have democratic governments and single payer government run health care. That seems like a no brainer. How do you figure that if we have government run single payer health care that makes our system of government socialist instead of democratic? You keep saying things like that and then wonder why you lose credibility.
I have to laugh at the people who say that health care reform has to be bipartisan. Evidently, they don't know that Medicare, one of the most popular programs ever devised by the Federal Government, was enacted in 1965 without the help of a single Republican vote. In fact, I would be suspicious of any health care reform measure that did get Republican support. They don't want true health care reform any more than they want to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Hyperbole does not help. Your statement is false. There were Republican votes for Medicare. Back in 1965 the Republicans had a viable moderate wing, and the Neocons hadn't jackbooted all disenters out of the party.
Here's the actual voting record for that 1965 Medicare vote:
Summary of Party Affiliation on Medicare Vote
SENATE YEA NAY NOT VOTING
Democrats 57 7 4
Republicans 13 17 2
HOUSE YEA NAY NOT VOTING
Democrats 237 48 8
Republicans 70 68 2
So, you can see that exactly half of all Republican Congressmen voted FOR Medicare in 1965! And 41% of Republican Senators voted for it. This is a far cry from today's extreme partisonship in both of those legislative bodies.
Many don't appreciate the low quality of for-profit healthcare where many pigs are at the profit trough. Employers provide the profit-slop but now it's unaffordable. The healthy young accept the for-profit system, unaware of what invariably awaits them from 50s on. TOTAL cost is astronomical because so much time is wasted jumping hurdles put up by for-profits to preventive stitches-in-time. Healthcare insurance isn't insurance. Maybe 0.1% of the houses in a neighborhood might go on fire. But not knowing which causes all home owners to get insurance. Health care is different: it either is there or it is not for in the end everyone dies and before that everyone gets sick. You could be paying your plan for 30 years and when you get really sick profit decides your healthcare, no matter how much you paid in past without using it. For healthcare industry only CURRENT profits count. If 30% of us got Swine Flu, hitting 5-15 y/o most severely, insurance companies would then raise rates far higher, making healthcare unaffordable. There will be no savior of last resort in for-protif system. ALL who are well would pay into a single payer system for when they really need it and for preventive care in order to delay that day or minimize its costs, then it will be affordable for all because no profits. Healthcare is MEDICARE FOR ALL. For-profit is cannibalism exploiting your vulnerability to eat you as slop.
Yep If you're young and healthy - who worries about health care ?
But it will catch up with them at some point..
They won't worry about health care when they are young until they pull one of the stunts young people so often pull and break both their legs...the
... a MUCH BIGGER issue than two broken legs would be in ALL CIVILIZED countries that CARE and COVER their CITIZENS!!!
The health insurance industry has the ethics of ENRON energy traders! Back in 1973 a major insurance4 company in Senator Charles Grassley home state, in the capital city of Des Moine, IoWA, American Republic Insurance company would not "touch me with a ten-foot colonoscope" with respect to selling me health insurance, but would sell me life insurance at a grossly inflated price. It would, however, sell my late wife a rather garbagedy policy, then branded as Americare, that conveniently weaseled out coverage of her chronic kidney condition, even though no company would issue her life insurance. The company agent, in a desperate move to keep me from replacing the life insurance policy, related to me an article that was in a company publication in which the underwriters were chortling on how "cute and clever" they were in that it would issue health insurance to a healthy skydiver, but not life insurance!
If the price for any "overhaul" is the omission of a public company option, then a very heavy price should be exacted in the plan, NOT PAID FOR BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY! that would setup a Government run appeal and adjudication board that would review all insurance company denials or retroactive termination!
"The health insurance industry has the ethics of Enron energy traders."
I'm going to respectfully disagree-- the health insurance industry ethics are even WORSE than ENRON!
Now is the time. Health care shouldn't favor the well connected, while it neglects, betrays, and shuts out others. Profits will be made, but the "killing" will be over.
If Americans get a single payer:
1) Prices will be contained.
2) Medicine will be streamlined, more efficient, uniform, and non redundant.
3) People will stop dying waiting for authorization, or from skipping treatment.
4) People will be able to work when and where they want, and retire when they have to.
5) People will stop going bankrupt.
6) New diseases, emergent catastrophies, future health care crisies will be handled proactively.
7) America's health and prosperity will be restored.
Why would you have such faith in a government that has screwed up everything it touches? How many years did it take to find out that Walgreens had bilked Medicaid for $35M? Prices will not be contained. Just how many federal employees do you think it will take since it generally takes 3 government employees to do the job of 1 in the private sector. New diseases and health care crises will not be handled proactively. Hasn't the government proven they react instead of being proactive? Look at TARP. Panic city in Washington and this stupid $700B bill was passed with no idea of how it would be spent. Check with Canada. People are dying waiting for authorization or for procedures for which there are few doctors. Why do you think they come to the US for treatment? To keep from dying while they're waiting. National Health Insurance is a catasrophe waiting to happen. To suggest most Americans want it is a bold faced lie.
Suggesting that private insurance is best is totally laughable. Please tell us you know that the USA is ranked DEAD LAST (#37th) among First World nations in quality per dollar of healthcare. And, we are the most expensive, te bout. Friend, it simply doesn't get any worse than that!!
Please, all you private insurance supporters are making yourself look absurd - and totally self-serving. Your gig is up, private supporters. No other country on Earth has our system because it is such a FAILURE for the collective populous.
You have no idea what is happening in Canada, so stop acting like you do. Most of my family lives there and I can assure you that everyone one of my 5 brothers and sisters and their families are treated to high quality health care at no cost. They pay slightly higher taxes for it, but it is well worth it. When I first came to the US, the biggest shock to my world view was seeing how families' entire lives could be destroyed by one illness, and how much health care was costing people. I have seen people I considered to be fairly well-to-do that are heavily oppressed with the financial burdens under the current health care system. And now I am one those people...T
Sorry, Willie, but your hysteria doesn't work any more. Your childish and ill-informed remarks about other systems make you look foolish.
NO OTHER NATION has adopted our system. Not one. Why? Because it doesn't work, it screens out pre-existing conditions, it costs too much, it excludes almost 20% of our people, and it is designed for stockholder profit -- and not for human care.
If rich Canadians come south for botox, many more Americans go north for any care at all.
Our private insurance system is designed to profit from human suffering and agony. It is a fundamentally immoral proposition. We're fed up with it. If you weren't such an ideologue, you would understand this. When you get cancer, although I do not wish it on you, just wait to see how you're treated by your private insurer.
You won't be as impressed as you imagine.
With all it s faults Medicare still works well and costs a fraction of what Private CO's charge for admin costs and serves millions over 65 . Ins Co's have to pay multi millions in CEO perks and golden parachutes and pay their stock holders as well. DO NOT let the fat cats / the ruling elite power brokers controls the US. any more. do not be fooled with the horror stories . Many are ' planted ' to scare us. THat's how they got us into Iraq-lies and fear mongering- Cheney is still doing it. Madoff was not the only schemer - a much bigger one was ued on all of us.
I waited 8 weeks to get knee surgery - and months to see a MD in the USA.
GOP has been using FEAR to control us for 20 of the last 28 years. Reagan 8 years - Bush SR 4 / W 8 years. Their policy of deregulation led us to this meltdown.
You don't see people in France out protesting in the streets over their "high" taxes. Because THEY actually GET something for the "high" taxes they pay ...
health care
child care
domestic care
college
WE can't get a pothole fixed ... because WAR takes PRECEDENCE over PEACE! ... because PROFITEERING takes PRECEDENCE over PEOPLE!!!
Why do we hate the french?
We hate them for their FREEDOM from the stresses & struggles that OUR families must endure!
I guess the only comments approved are the ones in favor of this plan. My comment hasn't been posted. I guess the Huffington Post doesn't like desenters.
Here we go again, bad mouthing Canada's system. elective surgery can mean a wait. Required surgery, such as I had, was the next day when I needed it, was timely, professional and,as I'm still here, effective. 11 days in hospital, 6 months home nursing care, resulted in a charge of $20.00 for the telephone.
willie08,
that's bull.
Jane lynne, well spoken, succinct argument for single payer... kudos to you.
Great post.
Also, the burden will be taken off employers when they no longer need to provide insurance to employees--business can expand without this extra burden.HR-
I had posted earlier that I had heard on MSNBC Hardball that Kennedy supports a public option.
The Ed Show states differently.
Kennedy supports:
Employers mandates
Insurance companies must agree to take on sick people--but for how much money--that is not specified.
No public option.
To me, this is more of the same--keeps the burden on employers and does nothing about affordability--and it feeds the private for profit insurance companies.
All it states is the insurance company must accept your application--no mention of WHAT they will pay for or how much the premiums will be.BFD.
The "healthcare" insurance companies are running scared ... now that MORE & MORE employers are dropping coverage ... and those dropped can't cover their CRIMINAL COST of premiums.
Losing customers = losing cash ... but no worries. The PROFIT PRIVATEERS are expecting their campaign contributions to work FOR them. Our elected officials will GUARANTEE GAINS and GARNISHEE those customers back ... by taking a NON-PROFIT option of PUBLIC healthcare off the table!
WE THE PEOPLE must jump up and down on that table UNTIL OUR VOICES ARE HEARD!!!
WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEMAND OUR RIGHT-TO-LIFE!!!
We all know that congress and the health insurance lobbyist will never allow such a bill to even be brought up for a vote,
It was impressive and encouraging to see representatives in the healthcare industry stand up at Obama's Healthcare Summit and PLEDGE to work WITH him to get healthcare costs under CONTROL. SOME of them have been GOUGING the system with GREED. Let's HOPE they can be convinced to FINALLY make PEOPLE more of their priority than PROFITS!
I believe that the ONLY way SERIOUS & SINCERE efforts will be made to bring QUALITY healthcare in THIS country back to a REASONABLE amount, is WHEN those "PRIVILEGED" Americans (MYSELF included) LOSE THEIR EMPLOYER-paid coverage. (YES, Tennessee Republican Zach Wamp actually called healthcare a "PRIVILEGE". Now THERE'S someone who COULD afford to pay for HIS "PRIVILEGED" healthcare HIMSELF, but instead accepts it FREE OF CHARGE from the unprivileged TAXPAYERS!)
IF we COULD REFUSE to pay the healthcare for the "PRIVILEGED" members of the House & Congress (or JUST the members of House & Congress who, like Wamp, are railing against ANY health-care reform effort as a move toward "socialism" and "class warfare"), YOU BETTCHA THEY'D SIT UP AND TAKE NOTICE THAT WE THE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE!!!
Dispensing health care efficiently, and collecting the money to pay for it cheaply, that's the purpose of the exercise, no one can compete with the government at these two tasks, no insurance company, HMO, or hospital; nobody.
America’s Veteran Administration is the largest, lowest cost; best outcome producing at any cost, health care delivery system in the US, it uses the world’s best medical software, and it has been controlling the problems with access, cost, quality, and malpractice successfully for years.
(The Best Care Anywhere by Phillip Longman)
A national sales tax could pay for the public portion of a dual choice, public or private system.
Every American choosing public care would receive all prescribed care and medications free, no insurance, no co pays, no precondition exceptions, free period.
Businesses selecting public care for their employees would not have to pay for or be involved in health care in any way.
Individuals happy with their private systems could continue paying for, either by self pay, company pay, or private insurance etc, and using the systems that they like.
This will cost less to operate, than the $2 trillion dollars inefficiently spent last year.
Bipartisan support? Let's get real! Both parties suck up to the HMOs and other insurance corporations and that is why REAL healthcare reform is going to be tough! However history shows us that needed social change never came about due to the goodness of any politician's heart! Needed social change seldom came about as a result of a court settlement. Needed social change only comes about when WE THE PEOPLE demand such!
All of these naysayers that whine that single payer will not pass or that the time isn't right... Please!
If the time isn't right it's because the HMO lobbyists have already bought the politician's off, both democrat and republican! The corporate leeches have the money, but we have the power of people uniting and fighting for what is right!
Single payer advocates need to take the cause to the streets! HEALTHCARE IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, NOT A COMMODITY OR PRIVILEGE!
According to ED on MSNBC,
Obama is meeting with insurance companies about implementing MANDATES.
This is what the insurance companies want--for us to be forced to buy their product. This was a failure in Mass. Push back--say NO TO MANDATES and government subsidies to the private health insurance industry.
HR-676--Medicare for all--single payer--we're in the fight of our lives.
http://www
First of all, I totally agree with you. Universal coverage for all... That said, I really don't think we can get that without involving the insurance companies, at least at first. Even Obama said in a recent press conference that the insurance industry is 1/6th of our economy, and he doesn't want another sudden collapse as happened with the auto companies and the banks. I can understand his reasoning.
I've talked to some friends I have in MA, and also follow media reports on their system, and it does work. It's not as good as a single payer system, but most of the state's population is covered. I don't like the idea of mandates either, but if that's what we have to have initially to get everyone covered, I'm for it. At least our premiums will decrease, and no one would be denied.
on your pnhp link - I know that they were pro-single payer at one time, but then more recently I've read where they are against it now, and are supporting involving the insurance companies. It's like 'newsspeak' in '1984.'
ndtovant,
hi. it's bs, if you go on the pnhp site, they explain how those who work for the insurance industry could work in the public health care system, retrain for different jobs, and also the health insurance company can go into auto, home, flodd, fire, life, pet health, malpractice, personal property, disability and business insurance--all businesses need to carry insurance.
This statement Obama made is not accurate. It's more fear to justify to supposed need to keep these parasitic companies in the lucrative health market.
Don't buy into that argument--push back.
http://www
click on this link and scroll down and see what Obama said in 2003.
Ever since The United States made 'socialism' a dirty word it's been used to thwart governing. Now to kill any real health care plan. The ONLY real solution IS single payer. All else just means we keep the insurance industry (a la AIG) happy and highly profitable at our 'health' expense. What is really so terrible about socialism????
According to Ed on MSNBC,
Medical malpractice costs ( used by an excuse by the Republicans for high costs of health care ) is a lie--it's LESS than 1% of the entire budget.
Don't buy into the Harry and Louise fearmongering.
The Republicans are fighting reform--tooth and nail.
Tune into the ED SHOW on MSNBC.
So to all the Repub congressmen who advocate against a public health plan, arguing about "rationing", "choice" and "quality": is this your opinion of your public health plan paid for by all taxpayers, available to all DC congressmen and women? In fact, I would encourage all Repub politicians who are currently on this "socialist" health plan to immediately drop it and purchase that fine "efficient" private health insurance they want to keep us all slaves to. I wish the public would be more forceful about making politicians walk their talk and bear the brunt of their terrible policy decisions. The whole Right wing is silent on this matter and won't hold their pols accountable for this blatant hypocrisy as long as their pols stave off the horrors of the American public being subjected to that horrible "socialist" health care plan that our congressmen and women are being subjected to.
Well, said maybe its time to send a message to our elected officials, do your job as we say or we will get someone who will!
I'm so glad someone finally said it...AMEN!
Tennessee Republican Zach Wamp actually called healthcare a "PRIVILEGE". Now THERE'S someone who COULD afford to pay for HIS "PRIVILEGED" healthcare HIMSELF, but instead accepts it FREE OF CHARGE from the un- or under-privileged TAXPAYERS!
IF we COULD REFUSE to pay the healthcare for the "PRIVILEGED" members of the House & Congress (or JUST the members of House & Congress who, like Wamp, are railing against ANY health-care reform effort as a move toward "socialism" and "class warfare"), YOU BETTCHA THEY'D SIT UP AND TAKE NOTICE THAT WE THE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE!!!
I'm watching HARBALL on MSNBC.
Seems the Senate wants to push this "TRIGGER" crap.
Push back, tell your officials NO TRIGGERS.
Public plan now HR-676--MEDICARE FOR ALL.
NO TRIGGERS!
HARDBALL--LOL
I agree. The whole idea of having a trigger makes the plan useless for the long term. Sure, it might cause the insurance companies to behave for a year or so, but after that they will be able to do whatever they want as Congress will refuse to implement a trigger in an election year.
Following is an article related to our need for a health care reform plan:
http://www
Raymond Gellner – Charlotte Liberal Examiner at Examiner.c
http://www
__________
The Republicans are PRO TRIGGER--it's Sen. Olympia Snow's baby.
Call her--push back on this trigger business.
According to ED, Kennedy is now on board for a public option.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
