Let's Pass Ted Kennedy's Health Plan

Let’s get a few things straight:   

• Until last year, Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s health care bill (co-authored with with Rep. John Dingell) was a bill known as Medicare for All.   Not expensive private insurance for some, but Medicare [a public insurance plan] for All.
• Senator Kennedy encouraged candidate and then President Obama to make health care for all his first priority -- during the campaign and as he took office. 
• And Ted Kennedy remained in charge as his HELP (Health, Education and Labor and Pension) Committee wrote -- and then passed -- a new health care bill with a strong public insurance option for those who want it. 

I feel the need to remind people of all this because conservatives, and especially Republican Senators, are trying to promote the idea that if only Ted Kennedy were still actively involved in the health care reform effort, he could have gotten the Democrats to fold and embrace a weakened “bi-partisan” compromised health reform strategy.  And some are urging that the best tribute we could construct to the great man’s memory is to pass such a watered-down health bill that could win the support of a large number of conservative Republicans. 

Media Matters has done a good job of tracking and responding to the crocodile tears of Republicans, keying off of a Politico obituary that repeats the conservative spin that “without Kennedy, Democrats were less willing to make the concessions needed for true [health care] compromise.”  But whatever Politico’s role, their journalism certainly picked up on the boldly outrageous statements of important conservatives.  One by one, Media Matters’ quotes Republicans from Orin Hatch to John McCain, lamenting that Kennedy’s passing has deprived them all of a “reasonable” Democrat who would have won Republican votes by getting rid of the public plan or making the cost of “reform” dramatically smaller.

Let’s get another thing clear:    

• Republicans don’t want a deal.  They want to kill health reform.

Democrats, especially a few in the Senate Finance committee, have for months been reaching out to Republicans with the hand of hopeful bi-partisanship.  And in recent months, conservative Republicans have made it clear that if Democrats (like Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus) are going to continue to reach out the hand of compromise, they are ready to bite it off.  

As cable television covered this weekend’s memorials to Ted Kennedy, when the talk got around to health care, there was almost always one pundit (usually one without much expertise about health care), who could be counted on to repeat the conservative talking points:  “It will take somebody with a liberal reputation like Teddy Kennedy to negotiate a deal with Republicans -- and convince the liberals to accept the compromise.”   

When someone occasionally reminds the discussants that even the Finance Committee Republicans, like Grassley and Enzi are refusing to make a deal -- as pollster Geoff Garin did in Sunday’s Washington Post -- one of these all-purpose pundits, like Cokie Roberts, quickly shift the arguments from Republicans to conservative Democrats.  Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, who professes to personally support single-payer heath care, has regularly gone on MSNBC programs to tell liberals they need to give up on the public insurance option if they want to get the support of enough Democrats to pass health reform without Republican support.  The generic pundit argument is that liberals need to learn to compromise -- by cutting back the total cost of the package and ditching the public option in order to get the insurance reforms -- like requiring insurance companies to cover all applicants -- and the great step forward of requiring everyone to have insurance. 

Let’s get a few more things straight:

• The public insurance option is consistently very popular in every poll, including the most recent ones, when you ask if people should have the option of choosing a public plan which competes with private insurance companies (which are very unpopular).
• The public insurance option is popular even among the supporters of conservative Democrats.
• The House will pass a very progressive health plan -- with a strong public option and enough funding to make health insurance affordable for most Americans.
• Support for a public plan is growing, not shrinking, in the US Senate.  Most Democratic Senators, including members of the Finance Committee -- like Baucus (yes, see his White Paper), Bingaman, and two of the strongest supporters of the public option, Rockefeller and Schumer -- have already endorsed a strong public plan.  Additional Senators would not vote against it.  And Baucus and the rest of the Finance Committee Dems are about to acknowledge the reality that the Republicans have rejected bi-partisanship.  That means Democrats can pass a bill like Kennedy’s HELP bill.

OK, but aren’t conservative Democrats worried about the high cost of health reform -- and won’t they demand a smaller, cheaper bill?  And won’t they oppose a public plan?

Let’s get a few more things straight:

• Individual mandates are the key demand of the insurance companies. Without that part of the deal, they will fiercely oppose the insurance reforms the pundits say are easy to pass -- the prohibitions against discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, for example. 
• But without subsidies that make insurance policies affordable – for middle class voters as well as the poor -- Democrats (even conservative Democrats) don’t want to require their voters to buy health insurance if those policies are not affordable.   Without that part of the package likely to disappear if the whole package is cut -- everybody involved in passing health reform will suffer voter backlash. 

Once fiscally responsible Democrats realize they don’t want to make large cuts in the size of the program, they start to understand that the public insurance option is their best tool for keeping the total costs of the program under control. 

Blue Dog Democrats in the House have already made a deal that accepts a pretty large health reform plan -- and a public option.  Senate Democrats are coming together around a health reform program that is big enough to do the job.  And they are embracing a public insurance plan that controls costs -- and keeps the private insurance industry honest. 

In other words, Democrats are coming together around the kind of health reform very much like Senator Ted Kennedy’s HELP bill. 

For more on health care, see Glenn Greenwald, or check out Institute for America's Future's latest report.

Follow Roger Hickey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rogerhickey

Comments

[HowIronic]

Democrats need hard numbers to show the public on how much money they will actually save with a public funded health care system. Once people understand how it will affect their bottom line, both businesses and private individuals, they will be screaming for the government option.

[ncmom54]

Excerpted from:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/former_jasper_county.php

Former Jasper County Republican Chairman on Single Payer

"I am a Republican, former chairman of the Republican Party in Jasper County, Ga., and chair of that county commission. Under our two-party system, it is easy to see why we Republicans oppose Democratic Party reform proposals. We are the opposition party and do not want them to get the political credit for solving a nasty problem.

Universal Medicare will both control costs and achieve universal access to high quality care. Congressmen would get the same insurance as you and I. You better believe your coverage would be just as good as or better than what you are getting now.

The problem is not technical; it is political. It is high time we put the country ahead of ourselves and establish a single-payer system."

[SteveCox]

Kennedy had said he regrets not compromising with Nixon on health care in the early 70's. It's not about appealing to conservative repubicans, it's the Dems from the red states that are the problem. Something IS better than nothing. James Madison designed our system for incremental changes.

I think Obama over promised and got people's expectations too high. My brother who is a public policy professor and supported Obama, told me during the election that no matter who won between Hillary or Obama, there would not be that much change but he thought Obama had a better shot at enacting change.

If you look at history, bold changes really only come after some major crisis. Bushed exploited 9/11 to make major changes. Obama would have had better luck if the economy would have had a MAJOR melt down, instead of just a very serious one. The stimulus plan was a major accomplishment. I personally think he could have done better with getting the money out faster. He has disapointed me by turning everything over to Congress like he has.

[barriosbabe]

Even the regular Dems are a problem. HR3200 reads like an insurance gravy train. We need single payer or a true public option - an affordable one that anybody can purchase. HR3200 is not that.

[ncmom54]

that says it all!

[THISTLE]

Senator Kennedy never caved, never retreated, he was a true fighter.
When the letter he wrote to the pope, was read at his grave, he had the
last word. This emotional heartfelt plea for healthcare for all was one of the
most touching of moments. Senator Kennedy had the last word.
And even with this, the Democrats can't rally, demand, push and get it done.
Instead they are talking about how to work and reach out to the Republicans.
As Democrats we are sick of begging and begging and begging for the
Democrats to find those elusive spines and backbones. ENOUGH.
Those of us who worked for Obama, donated money and time to him,
are beyond disappointed. He has NO fight, NO passion, NO fire, and
time is running out.

[ncmom54]

excerpted from: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/liar_liar_well.php

"The House bill on healthcare reform, the Senate plan for healthcare reform and the President’s plan for healthcare reform — none of these actually guarantee that you can keep what you have if you like it, because tomorrow your employer or your insurance company may change what you like... to suit their bottom line.
We can provide one another the healthcare security that we’re being misled to believe is in the current reform plans. But we will have to help our fellow Americans to understand that a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system — like Medicare — for all of us —is the most reasoned, most economical and most freedom-protecting choice"
http://www.pnhp.org
Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 17,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance.

[Rhiana]

"The House bill on healthcare reform, the Senate plan for healthcare reform and the President’s plan for healthcare reform — none of these actually guarantee that you can keep what you have if you like it, because tomorrow your employer or your insurance company may change what you like... to suit their bottom line.

==

which is nothing new... employers have been doing this for years as costs skyrocket.

A public option on the other hand, gives us the freedom to opt out of the for-profit system if we choose to.

[barriosbabe]

Are you aware that the public option in the most popular house bill HR3200 cannot be chosen?

It sounds like you don't.

[CTtransplant]

Excellent post!

[liamd1]

"Mr. President, your party has 78 more seats in the House than the GOP. You also have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Republicans couldn’t stop you if they wanted to. It was recently said that ”The only thing bipartisan about this (Obamacare) is the opposition to it.” If they wanted Republicans to offer their input on a health care bill, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer would not have shut them out of offering ammendments to it."

[retreadite]

Repubs aren't the problem. Dems should hammer this through. It would help if Obama would quit lying about the plan being "deficit neutral" nobody (even Obama) believes that.

[DesertDogAlpha]

How about this as an approach to the public option so many want?

The public option should be completely self supporting - meaning no taxpayer money goes to fund it. As with the private plans, the cost of the program would be paid by the participants. It is not an income redistribution plan - do I have that right? Or is the public option just a way to get others to pay for your insurance - is that what folks are really talking about when they complain that there is no competition for private insurers?

Public option should tier people based on risky health behaviors - obesity, smoking, use of drugs including marijuana, excessive use of alcohol, physical fitness programs for those who are healthy, and not having babies by unwed mothers. All can be routinely tested for by the government insurer in order to keep costs realistic so that those in the program (especially those who lead healthy lives) can afford to pay for the program. And ALL must have insurance - no opt-outs since your clearly will expect to be taken care of is you get very sick.

Of course, we can have a very small program for those who are truly needy and can't support themselves, or those left out in the cold by pre-existing conditions. And that can be supported by all of the rest of us as more or less a charitable effort - maybe we each pay 0.5 percent of our incomes up to

[Rhiana]

some of what you say i can understand.

you lose me completely tho on the judgemental stuff... you restrict health coverage for "unwed mothers" and require testing by the government to rank people on their lifestyle and "risky" behaviors. but only for those on the public option...

I honestly do believe that equal access for everyone is the right thing, morally, economically. It should be a basic right enjoyed by all citizens. Free markets work for a lot of things. But not the health of a nation's people.

[DesertDogAlpha]

I would absolutely not restrict healthcare access (insurane) for unwed mothers. But I would put them in a more expensive tier and demand that they and the fathers pay for being in the more expensive tier. Sort of you get what you pay for. Or as many of our own mothers said - you made that bed, now go lie in it. Same for smokers, the obese, etc. Does anyone in the USA really not know that being obese or smoking is unhealthy?

[barriosbabe]

I was recently treated in a hospital in Italy. There are way less risky behaviors because the government pays for and promotes education for health and is not in bed with big agribusiness and big p h a r m a (the 2 leading causes of obesity) like here.

[gs-425]

Lets not

[Rhiana]

wow there is a thoughtful concise argument. you won me over.

[trotskylives]

Here is a simple, bi partisan health care plan, a simple, bi-partisan plan Obama could pass and make both sides happy that is under 20 pages long:

1) Open up medicare to anybody instead of public option.
2) Give sliding vouchers up to 300% of poverty level to everybody that qualifies, they can buy medicare or private insurance or just use the money to buy healthcare tax free.
3) Govt gives every citizen catastrophic insurance over 75K of costs. Prices will drop dramatically with 75K limit on risk for private insurance. No more BK.
4) Whatever rules are for medicare are also for private insurance companies, regulated nationally. No dropping.
4) Remove the tax deduction from corporations, and give to individuals.
5) New under 65 medicare must pay for itself, no extra government subsidy - only via higher vouchers that people can use anywhere.
6) Tort reform that loser pays for ALL attorneys fees

How to pay for vouchers? Tax savings from corp 35% rate to individuals, medicare savings, and $.25 increase in national gas tax. (drop cap and scam) This will give medicare and private insurance an equal playing field and increase competition. If medicare is better/cheaper, then people will choose it over time. If private is better, people will choose that. Let the best solution win.

If Obama did the above, his poll numbers would be at 80%+ instead of 50% where there are now. Republicans would agree to this, because current plans are much worse.

[Angie Cordeiro - Huffpost Blogger]

Published on Monday, August 31, 2009 by Real Time w/ Bill Maher
Bill Maher & Bill Moyers on Health Care and Obama

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2009/08/31

[CherokeeGirl]

what got me is moyers went on and on about how congress is owned by big business and nothing can be done. Then he mounts into a speach pro-health reform. I was left a bit nonplused.

[RealityThinks]

What I don't understand is the dems/libs say they want 2 things -

1. Care for all
2. Cost of care to come down

This could easily be done by -

* Making Medicaid a federal program - up to 150% of poverty eligible
* Making changes to insurance laws - no one exclude (pre-existing), insurers compete across state lines and detach insurance from companies and tie it to individuals

The dems won't agree to this, because they are being disingenious, they really just want to grow the government -

[CherokeeGirl]

shyeah, right. We just want higher taxes, big government and we want to abort all babies.

Government is all we can trust when big corp works against our interests cheating on fees/rates.

[RealityThinks]

So if the congress passes these laws to change the way the insurance industry operates, you don't think they could enforce them? I thought you had all of this trust in the government ? Please explain.

[Rhiana]

you forgot the killing old people. and veterans. and denying coverage based on voter registration.

[Rhiana]

Even better, let's make medicare available to anyone who wants it. 150% of poverty inclusive, everyone else pays premiums, based on income.

[RealityThinks]

What if you are underserved? sue the govt.? complain? If there are no private insurers, there will be no competition - costs will rise as service suffers.

[CherokeeGirl]

(sang to "Mama said there'd be days like this")

Obama said we'd have health reform
We'd have health reform
Obama said

Obama said, Obama said

Obama said we'd have it just like theirs
It'd be just like theirs
Obama said!

[trotskylives]

For all of you who want the public option, imagine this scenario:

Let's say its 2012 and President Palin has just hired Dick Cheney to be the deputy director of public option, with Mr. Bobby Jindle at his side to help out. Also, Brownie from Katrina is brought in as a consultant.

Lets also imagine that your employer has dropped you from the private insurance company coverage because its cheaper to pay the government fine, now that private insurance has to cover so many new things, while the public option is taxpayer subsidized and much cheaper.

We are still running huge deficits, and cuts need to be made. Mr Jindal and Cheney are brought in to make cuts, and you have no health care choices left. Now all of your health care decisions are going to be run by these folks. Might they consider not covering, lets say abortions, to save some money? Maybe you need an exorcism (a lot cheaper) instead of surgery for that hip pain you are having?

How does that make you feel about the public option?

[CherokeeGirl]

we managed to keep them from privatizing social security and gutting medicare, so I think the public option would be safe just like medicare and social security are now.

scarey parallel universe you draw. Good thing it didn't become reality!

[trotskylives]

You trust the government a lot more than I do.

The 2012 scenario is not that far fetched with Obama in the 50% approval range, and the current economic crisis not getting better.

Again, I trust real competition and choice, not the government. I am not sure why so many people do.

Competition keeps things in check when people have many choices.

[barriosbabe]

Is anybody anywhere going to stand up and shout the truth that the main Dems House version creates a cr@ p py public option that Americans cannot choose (you have to qualify)?

I feel like we went down the Rabbit Hole!

[CherokeeGirl]

which dem house bill? there are three or four of them.