Open Left

"federally-backed insurance pool"/"federally-backed health insurance option" = their "public" plan -- (0.00 / 0)

and it'll definitely be run by a private HMO, like in Mass --

CJR -- What the Heck Do the Senators Mean? -- http://www.cjr.org/campaign_de...

... Just what did the senators mean? The press release was not at all helpful in that respect. First, it said that the signers wanted to include a "federally-backed health insurance option in health care reform." Two graphs later, the release built upon that claim, specifying that the senators wanted to establish a "federally-backed insurance pool to create options for American consumers." There's a big difference between a single option that would be a government-financed program like Medicare-with the government providing the benefits-and the several options offered by private insurers that provide benefits with the government's blessing, as they do in Massachusetts. ...

The press release then featured comments by various senators, offering their ideas on what a public plan should be. New York senator Charles Schumer said he wanted a plan "that delivers all the benefits of increased competition without relying on unfair, built-in advantages." That sounds like the compromise he touted earlier. But if a public plan plays by the same rules as private insurers, what's the point? Where's the potential to lower premiums? And how can more private plans under the umbrella of some public option really reduce costs, given the fact that they will likely add more to the billions in billing costs that are already built into private insurance? ...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 16:59:04 PM CDT

We Don't Know If It Will lBe Like the Mass Plan (0.00 / 0)

...and I would agree that if it is like the Mass Plan then that will not be successful. Or at least I won't have health care insurance that I can believe in.

The important thing though is that the discussion is still ongoing. We have to lobby for something better than the Mass Plan and something more ambitious than what Schumer has outlined. That's why the lobbying campaign by the SEIU, Dr. Howard Dean and others is so important. Keep in mind that if you were correct then the usual sleazy health insurance lobbyists would want the public option. They don't. In fact, they're ramping a campaign against it. That tells me that they fear the public option and rightfully so. A strong public option is a backdoor path to Single Payer. It also disciplines the private insurers in ways that state insurance commissions and government regulatory bodies would never ever do...

Philip Shropshire
www.threeriversonline.com

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com

---

by: Steelydan3 @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 17:24:49 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

they want the money from mandated insurance -- not the restrictions/price caps/regs -- (0.00 / 0)

that's what HMOs are against -- not one of them was against gettting 120% of Medicare on private "supplemental insurance" under that "reform".

---

by: amberglow @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 16:02:04 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]