Well said (0.00 / 0)

(And with a nifty title too.)

It's also a test of Obama's political philosophy (or at least political strategy), which values compromise and devalues lines-in-the-sand. I guess I understand why Obama is sitting back and letting Senators work out many of the details, but   there may come a time, sooner than later, when he needs to say what he wants. Remember, his principles for health care reform didn't include a public option, and his statements haven't been encouraging.

"If there is a way of getting this done," he said, "where we're driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I'd be happy to do it that way."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 14:50:48 PM CDT

Calling the committee. (4.00 / 6)

Finance Committee's number is:

(202) 224-4515

I just called to let them know of my opposition and had a nice chat with the staffer.  (Btw., for those who might be uncomfortable with calling,  I've found them to be very pleasant and courteous.)

According to Sam Stein's article here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

of the Democrats on the committee, Wyden and Carper have "offered their support" for the trigger.  Constituent calls should go out to them immediately.

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 14:53:57 PM CDT

Thanks for the tip (4.00 / 1)

I just called, too. I'd never called a committee office before.

I can't make many calls this time of day, but I sent email to all the committee members, including Wyden and Carper.

Thanks for posting this stuff when it is timely. A good public option for health insurance is my personal top political priority for 2009. It would make big a difference in employment options for me over the next few years. It's easy to see that a "trigger" of any type, even if it sounds reasonable, would kill it.

Based on his campaign speeches, I'd have to think that Obama would oppose a trigger. Universal access (as opposed to universal coverage) was the mantra he returned to in every debate in early 2008. A "trigger" sort of flies in the face of universal access.

---

by: Mark Wallace @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 16:46:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a list of the (4.00 / 2)

committee members.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 18:01:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks. I'm not sure why (0.00 / 0)

Mike doesn't have the names and contact info in the body of his post. It really does make a difference in the number of people who will call, simply for convenience's sake.  

---

by: Oaktown Girl @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 18:26:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the heads up (4.00 / 3)

Here's the list of email forms:

http://www.senate.gov/general/...

Seems like Wyden and Baucus need to realize that they're painting targets on themselves for the Lieberman treatment.

---

by: obsessed @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 15:13:03 PM CDT

I understand Baucus... (0.00 / 0)

...but, why is Wyden being such an ass?  Isn't he supposed to be one of us?

Oregonians need to be calling him as much as possible...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 15:44:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

speaking of "public options" -- funding this reform cuts 300 billion from Medicare/Medicaid -- (4.00 / 1)

it's part of how they're funding it --

...

Lawmakers are trying to find cost savings through Medicare and Medicaid, the government health programs for the elderly and poor. The White House has proposed about $300 billion in savings from those two programs.

Baucus also made clear he is considering limiting the tax benefits of employer-provided insurance.

Workers now pay no taxes on that benefit but Baucus said a cap on the tax exclusion would likely be a part of legislation his committee is writing, even though Obama opposes taxing employer-provided health benefits.

-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...

existing public options that work, are popular -- and cost much less -- are being cut.

while this new "public option" is said to be moving us toward single-payer? not.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 17:13:41 PM CDT

"Public Option" Is Not The Same As Single-Payer (0.00 / 0)

We need to be very careful about adopting the language being put out by the Democrats and by Obama.  They have flat-out said, again and again, "No Single-Payer."  They refuse to even discuss it.  Obama and the Democrats in Congress have met with the Medical Industry CEOs and lobbyists and not with the citizens.  And at the conclusion of the meetings with the CEOs, guess what happened?  Democrats promised the corporations that there would be no single payer.  

Instead, we have Obama and the Democrats coming out cheering about a "public option" that will be made available.  What exactly is a "public option?"  We don't know.  But we do know that the essence of the proposal is this:  (1) No restrictions on fees charged by doctors, hospitals, drug companies, or insurance companies; (2) Every American will be forced to buy health insurance.  Sounds like a Republican idea, doesn't it?

My guess is that a Public Option will work as follows:  Blue Cross, for example, is a private health insurance company, and will continue to operate that way.  They will set up a subsidiary named "Public Blue," and will write up slick marketing brochures to promise everyone that the Public Blue insurance is affordable and comprehensive.  It may cost less than the private kind, but that's only until the Democrats' big to-do about "reforming" healthcare is over, at which point they'll yank up those premiums so fast your heads will spin.  And if it costs one penny less than their other insurance (which is unaffordable), it certainly will provide a lot less coverage.  

This Public Option debate is a con.  Demand Single-Payer.  Even progressive groups are now out cheering about Public Option, and ignoring demands from their followers that they stand up for Single Payer.  

I heard a gathering on cspan last week-end, and one woman from Obama's economic citizens group, I think a union lady, said Public Option is great.  When someone in the audience yelled out "Single-Payer" she said "There will be no single-Payer.  Not now, and probably not in my lifetime."  

It's a con.  They're trying to con us into thinking they're doing something to help us, but they're not.  They're just using the threat of healthcare reform to shake down these industries and get more bribes for themselves.  Just like they used the threat of credit card reform to do absolutely nothing but shake down the industry and get a bigger percentage for themselves.  

---

by: NABNYC @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 17:21:10 PM CDT

The frame of the debate... (4.00 / 2)

Hello Mike,

I am not so sure about this argument.  

Clearly, the most important decision that was made was to agree to not threaten the insurance companies with a single-payer system.  Not sure the who, what, when of that decision, but of course I'd love to know.

This lead to a second monumentous decision, by Baucus (and others), to censure, deny, block, obfuscate, condescend, insult, arrest, have no place at the table and no voice in the debate for single-payer reforms...meaning, for the vast majority of our nation's healthcare activists who support the single-payer movement.  (Great reporting by Ryan Grim on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... .)  

This is a decision whose ramifications are still not clear. On the one hand, Congress and the Beltway crowd have decided to ignore a gigantic pot of money...perhaps hamstringing this healthcare reform before it even begins. How can we care for all patients when insurance companies disappear 31% of patient care dollars into "overhead"?  That's a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars.  (Sorry for the caps, but it's real money.)  By allowing the debate to be slanted so dramatically to big-money insurance donors, we have no context or guidelines with which to judge the public option, and the possibility that it will/won't lead to a more efficient and humane use of all those resources.

Your concerns about losing the activist healthcare base certainly should have been "triggered" by this decision to stiffarm single-payer, as well no?  Arnold Schwarzenegger's healthcare bill was defeated because he used it as an opportunity to attack single-payer reformers, and he pushed an individual mandate, which is a pernicious government guarantee of forced sales of insurance products.  He ended up with a healthcare bill without a constituency...other than 9 of California's 10 largest insurers, and they just weren't enough.

Finally, you argue that the "trigger" provisions gives cover to centrist Dems to oppose real healthcare reform.  Can't the same argument be made of the entire public option proposal?  And doesn't your argument suggest the problem with giving up in advance, and pushing for a weak-kneed "public option," rather than the single-payer reforms that any health economist without a stipend from AHIP will tell is the simplest way to solve this healthcare crisis?

Single-payer activists will finally get their meeting with Sen. Baucus tomorrow, and I'm sure it will be passionate.  But it took 13 arrests, dozens of marches, a few ad campaigns, and a flood of phone calls and faxes to accomplish that.  Something is not right here.

The National Nurses Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO) is the largest RN union in U.S. history, representing thousands of activist nurses in all 50 states, and leading the fight for guaranteed healthcare, patient safety, and nurse rights.

---

by: National Nurses Movement @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 18:00:42 PM CDT

Single Payer (4.00 / 2)

The problem with implementing single payer is most people like the insurance they have right now.  The biggest fear motivating people is the fear they will lose what they have.  Taking away what they have doesn't help, much.

So even if you take away all the moneyed interests, the political will to institute pure single payer just isn't there.

Would people prefer a single payer plan once they actually got it?  Absolutely!  But there are elections between now and then.  True single payer could be a huge risk to anyone voting for it.

So what is needed is a good political path from here to there.  That is one reason why the public option is considered so important to some and so dangerous to others.  It helps provide that path.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 18:48:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The uninsured and underinsured need help. (0.00 / 0)

Maybe people who get healthcare from their employers like the current system.  But there were 50 million uninsured before the recession, and probably lots more by now.  For the self-employed, the price hikes are devastating and designed to force people out of the insurance pool if they ever get an illness.

So the idea is to make single-payer available to anyone who wants it, which would immediately include all the uninsured, and many self-employed people.  People with an income would buy into the system.  Poor people would have their share paid by the government.  

Screw the election.  All the Democrats want to do is to do nothing, solicit bribes from the insiders and CEOs, suck up to the conservatives, and keep us silent and grateful while they do nothing.  If the Democrats don't start doing what we want -- like the end the wars, create jobs, prosecute the war criminals and the Wall Street criminals -- then they should not be re-elected.  Why vote for them if they will do nothing for us when they get into office?

Besides, the only reason Obama and the Democrats in Congress have taken single-payer out of the discussion is because they've negotiated kick-backs and bribes from the Medical Industry.  It's all just a shake-down:  threaten to "reform" healthcare, get enormous bribes from the nervous insiders who want to continue plundering without restrictions.  Screw the people.

If the Democrats plan to "reform" healthcare by ordering all Americans to buy private insurance, then I'd rather have no reform at all.  All that accomplishes is to give more business to the insurance companies.  It's just a ridiculous idea.  But that is what they're going to do.  In exchange for an unenforceable promise from the insurance industry that 10 years down the road, they will "control" costs.  If this is what the Democrats do, I would say that we need to throw every one of them out of office.

---

by: NABNYC @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 19:44:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who want it (0.00 / 0)

So the idea is to make single-payer available to anyone who wants it...

Single payer basically by definition means everyone is in.  You can't just offer it to "those who want it".  When you mix and match what you get is a public option, which you claim to be against.  I'm confused.

Also, if there is a public option then no one will be required to buy private insurance.

But even if the public option goes away, the requirement to buy insurance goes back to the mandate issue that was constantly argued between Obama and Hillary supporters.  I thought the final consensus was Hillary was right on this issue and mandates were needed to keep costs down and get get closer to universal coverage.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 20:16:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My understanding is different. (0.00 / 0)

Single payer does not mean "everyone is in."  The single-payer option means that those of us who choose can buy into Medicare and have the same arrangement, with the government being the only one writing checks to medical providers, and setting rates and fees.  Working people might be required to buy into the system, and write a check to the government for our share.  

You certainly can offer single payer to those who want it.  Example:  Medicare.  The idea would be that people could choose to participate in Medicare, but anyone with private insurance would be free to keep it.  

I don't know what you are thinking when you say "public option."  My understanding is this:  Obama wants to have a special insurance package available to the public that they can buy which will be similar to the insurance package bought by people in the government.  That's it.  It's still private insurance.  

Finally, the point on forcing everyone to buy private insurance is that it is an enormous give-away to the health insurance industry whose product is overpriced and inadequate.  Many people can't afford to buy health insurance.  The better alternative is to have the government allow people to opt in to Medicare.  People with incomes can buy in.  Lower-income people should get it free.  The health insurance industry adds nothing to healthcare in this country and should be entirely eliminated.  That's the idea of single-payer.  Get rid of the health insurance industry.  

---

by: NABNYC @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 21:53:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

kennedy's bill (0.00 / 0)

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) is circulating the outlines of sweeping health-care legislation that would require every American to have insurance and would mandate that employers contribute to workers' coverage.

The plan in the summary document, provided by two Democrats who do not work for Kennedy, closely resembles extensive changes enacted in the senator's home state three years ago.

In many respects it adopts the most liberal approaches to health reform being discussed in Washington. Kennedy, for example, embraces a proposal to create a government-sponsored insurance program to compete directly with existing private insurance plans, according to one senior adviser who was not authorized to talk to reporters.

The draft summary also calls for opening Medicaid to those whose incomes are 500 percent of the federal poverty level, or $110,250 a year for a family of four.

President Obama, meanwhile, is urging his most loyal supporters to reactivate the grass-roots machine that helped elect him and direct it toward health-care reform.

"If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done," he said yesterday in a call to members of Organizing for America, the political group formed to advance his agenda. "And to do that we're going to need all of you to mobilize."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 22:29:18 PM CDT