Open Left

Right, which points to the real problem, or one of them... (4.00 / 2)

In the case of Baucus, what he actually said is he wants a public option solely for the purpose of keeping the feet of the insurers "to the fire." Now, to my mind and maybe I'm wrong in interpreting it this way, that's a pretty hollow position. Indeed, Baucus is also against using the reconciliation process and instead wants to let the Rethuglicans filibuster. Somehow, I don't think he's playing for our team.

What lobbyist (or massive group of lobbyists colluding on this process) would bother to take the "public option" seriously if this is the attitude of the committee chair that will put the bill to the floor? Baucus has also publicly stated that single payer is off the table, so that doesn't give him much leverage when he's already flushed the big stick down the loo. I can't really speak to Sibelius, but if this is just a matter of hollow posturing, it doesn't count for much in real terms.

Lastly, if the "public option" is in fact privatized, how is that a public option?

I agree that the corporatist model can be sold, but I also hope your scenario turns out wrong. I just don't think it will work in any appreciable way. It will just be business as usual and I think most people who have to deal with that industry will find this out rather quickly. Healthcare will still be denied, rationing by spreadsheet will continue to get worse and the only real "reform" will be the size of public subsidies of private profits (wait, where have we heard that before?). I realize I'm being pretty cynical here, but I just can't help thinking the key people in the Senate (Reid and Baucus) are vastly more cynical than I, especially after their recent STFU remarks to "whining liberals."

If the final bill ends up looking like the Massachusetts program, which is rumored at times, then look out. Individual mandates w/ obscenely high premiums, taxing employee based insurance and a declining economy with mass unemployment will not have pleasant results, methinks. Issuing fines to unemployed people for not getting insurance won't go over too well either.

Better to sink a bad bill and get people mad in time for the next election cycle than let a porcine lipstick model get onto Obama's desk. I'm happy the CPC has taken a stand. If nothing else it lays the groundwork for Reform 2.0, but maybe it can have a positive impact on Reform 1.0.  

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 22:38:44 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

I'm trying to figure out... (4.00 / 2)

...what the benefit of a "privatized" public option would be... how would that be any different than anything else.  

Many large companies don't pay insurance premiums for health care clams(i.e. self insured), but pay for the health care directly--they only have insurers run the administration of the plans for a fixed fee.  In most of those cases, the resulting coverage is much better than if the plan was purchased directly from the insurer 'cos the employers aren't nickle and diming their employees with denied benefits.  The insurers have no incentive to challenge claims 'cos it's not on their dime, and denying coverage and making life hell for the employees who could make them demand a different plan from their employer in the future.  So, I guess the one big benefit of such a "public option" would be that the government pays directly for all the costs with the insures only acting as an administrator.  

I do not know if that is how the federal government administers their plans, but if they are the direct payer, then, we kind of do have a public option with this setup.  Remember, that the administration of medicare is also farmed out to third parties in the private sector, so it might not be as bad as we assume...

I will get some more info...

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 @ Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 22:48:25 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

The devil is in the details, as they say (0.00 / 0)

I don't know much of anything about the congressional healthcare thing. If they use private carriers, then it doesn't really seem to be a very public thing, except that the USG picks up the tab on a large portion of it. How it works is unknown to me.

ONe of the reasons I'm particularly strident on the health care issue is that it speaks to many of our nation's ills. Single payer would be a huge boon for the economy, creating jobs...it would also make US companies much more competitive in the global economy. It would ruin this notion of privatization, which is now and always has been a neo-liberal scam to seize the public goods and turn them over to private interests. It would also be the most democratic of all solutions and would make healthcare accountable to the people.

So I'm open to any option that makes significant steps in that direction. My own sense is that once private industry has to compete with the public option, they will be done soon enough.

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:34:26 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]