tagged w/ Public Option
-
Support for including some version of a public option in the Senate's version of a healthcare overhaul appears to be solider than initially believed.
In a series of comments that have received little attention, conservative Democratic senators -- even those who've publicly said they oppose a public option -- say they are unlikely to join a Republican filibuster to block it. Under Senate rules, Democrats would need to convince 60 members to support the ability to vote on healthcare legislation with the public option (cloture), and then just 51 to pass it.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told a reporter earlier this week that she wouldn't join Republicans in voting against cloture.
"I'm not right now inclined to support any filibuster," Landrieu said.
"For the Republican Party to kind of step out of the game is very unfortunate," she added, referring to the Senate Republicans' intransigence on healthcare reform proposals. "I'm not going to be joining people that don't want progress."Support for including some version of a public option in the Senate's version of... more
-
-
Despite months of claims by politicians and political observers that a public health care option couldn't pass the Senate, multiple news sources reported Thursday that a government-run public health insurance plan is back on the Senate agenda.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is said to be "leaning towards" including a public option in the bill that will hit the Senate floor in the coming weeks. The Senate Finance Committee -- whose support is crucial to any bill having to do with government spending -- head earlier approved a version of health care reform without the public option.
The form of public health insurance Reid and other Senate leaders are considering would include an "opt-out" clause that would allow individual states not to participate in the plan if they so choose, according to a report at Roll Call.Despite months of claims by politicians and political observers that a public health... more
-
-
1. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP, one of DC’s most powerful lobbying groups, has worked inside the beltway for years to defeat single payer.
2. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). The private health insurance industry. Public enemy number one. The health insurance corporations must die so that the American people can live.
3. American Medical Association. With a shrinking base of doctors (only 25 percent of doctors nationwide belong) – the AMA is the most conservative of the doctors’ organizations.
4. Barack Obama. He was for it when he was a state Senator in Illinois. To get off the list, Obama needs to put single payer back on the table (It's our table - not Wall Street or inside the beltway).
5. Business Roundtable: “In private, they support single payer, but they’re also thinking – if you can take away someone else’s business – the insurance companies’ business – you can take away mine. Also, if workers go on strike, I want them to lose their health insurance. And it’s also a cultural thing – we don’t do that kind of thing in this country.”
6. Families USA. A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. It’s chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more.
7. Health Care for America Now. The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies.
8. Kaiser Family Foundation. One of the most prestigious liberal inside the beltway think tanks on health reform policy.
9. The Lewin Group. The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by United Health Group, the nation’s largest FOR-PROFIT health insurance corporation.
10. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA). PHRMA chief executive Billy Tauzin says that under single payer, the government would become a “price fixer.” By which he means, the government, as a single payer, will have the power to negotiate drug prices downward, thus costing the drug corporations millions in excess profits.
____________________________________________________________________
Single payer is one of the best ways to go. But I'd like to point out that the term "single payer" refers to the finance aspect of universal healthcare. I believe the term has been overused to repel thoe who would otherwise support universal healthcare for all. In France, the number one country for healthcare, everyone is covered and the government plays a strong role in regulating the industry. For one, they set the amounts that doctors will charge for any given procedure and this is placed on the wall of the doctors' offices. They have many payers involved. But they are all non-profit. In fact every other industrialized nation does not have any for-profit insurance involved in any way.
The problem with the U.S. is that the profit driven system is adverse to provide affordable and equal health care for all. It translates to a "loss" in the for-profit industry when they have to pay out claims. But this is not the case in non-profits, especially if they are government funded. So while single payer, meaning only the government insures everyone, is a good plan, we should not discount the possibility of allowing non-profits in, but there has to be tough government regulation and control to go along with that.
So I think we should all consider using the term "universal health care for all", instead of "single payer". After all, it is more accurately our goal to provide health care for all, whether there is one or more payers involved is not really the point of contention, is it?1. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP, one of DC’s most... more
-
-
Can the U.S. government truly handle a public option for health care? Can they be an effective health care and health insurance provider? Alex Hertel-Fernandez says, yes! And offers a graph to prove it.
He says:
The American public recognizes the potential for a public health insurance plan option to provide high quality and affordable care. In a poll released on Monday, a majority of Americans (51 percent) state they would rather have a strong public option than have any Republican votes on a health care bill.Can the U.S. government truly handle a public option for health care? Can they be an... more
-
-
The robust public option is eight votes short of the 218 it needs to pass the House, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) tells HuffPost.
Grijalva, as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been counting support for a public option tied to Medicare rates -- the so-called Medicare plus five -- over the last few weeks.
"We anticipate that we're at 210," he said. "We feel that the momentum is all on the robust Medicare plus five public option."
Grijalva said that "25-plus" Democrats have said they will vote no. "Some of those no's are no regardless. It has nothing to do with the public option," he said, putting the number of those firm no-votes at 18 or 19.
There are 256 Democrats in the House. With 25 or 30 no votes, that leaves only about 15 to 20 members still to decide. Progressives need roughly half of them.
He says that backers of the public option are focusing on those persuadable Democrats rather than negotiating with members who will vote no.
"Why are we spending valuable time compromising on an issue when, at the end of the day, they're going to vote no?" he said.
On Tuesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the caucus she was forging ahead with the robust public option, but needed to be sure there were 218 votes. Democrats plan to huddle again on Wednesday evening.The robust public option is eight votes short of the 218 it needs to pass the House,... more
-
-
A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.
CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.
This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.
CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option -- one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House... more
-
-
The President has said that the health care insurance industry is 1/6 of our economy. Which 1/6 would that be? Because 1% of the population owns more wealth than 95%. So isn't that 1/6 of the economy in the 1% part of the population (his friends) on Wall Street and inside the beltway? The 95% can do just fine without the health insurance industry which makes money on their health care and medical debt.
So the argument that we can't have a universal health care system due to it being 1/6 of the economy is questionable. With universal health care we can eliminate medical debt, which is a big part of the problem, since it is the cause of most foreclosures. Yes the health insurance for-profit industry would be decimated. But it is a criminal industry that preys upon people and holds them hostage for their health insurance premiums, denying care when they need it, and effectively murdering 122 people every day who die for lack of care. As public health nurse Maureen Cruise says, they would be jailed in any other country.
The bank, credit, and finance industry should do just fine without the health insurance sector. After all, the health insurance industry has been making record profits, while everyone else, including the credit and bank sectors, languish as corporate welfare bailout recipients despite health insurance record profits.
The public option is just another bailout for the health insurance sector, which needs it the least of anyone.
Visit http://OutInTheStreetFilms.com/?page_id=3The President has said that the health care insurance industry is 1/6 of our economy.... more
-
-
Poll finds majorities support two key, controversial points in health reform:
As Democratic congressional leaders and White House officials work to shape health care bills that will go to the House and Senate floors, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and now wins clear majority support from the public.
Americans remain sharply divided about both the overall health care package and President Obama's leadership on the issue, reflecting the intense partisan battle that has raged for months over the administration's top legislative priority. But majorities now back two key and controversial provisions: both the so-called public option and a new mandate requiring all Americans to carry health insurance.
Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of a public insurance option, and are particularly supportive if it were administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private insurance, as stipulated in some versions of the legislation.
But in a sign of the fragile coalition politics that now influence the negotiations in Congress, Obama's approval ratings on health care are slipping among his fellow Democrats even as they are solidifying among independents and seniors. Among Democrats, strong approval of his handling of health care has dropped 15 percentage points since mid-September.
These numbers underscore the challenges ahead for the president and Democratic congressional leaders as they attempt to maintain support among liberals and moderates in their own party while continuing to seek approval from at least a few Republicans lawmakers.
...More...
Also: Link to specific poll results: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.htmlPoll finds majorities support two key, controversial points in health reform:
As... more
-
-
Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, until last April a Republican, has pulled out the jams in his criticisms of his former party, telling Fox News Sunday that the GOP has become a "party of obstructionism."
But that obstructionism won't stop substantial health care reform from being passed, Specter implied, saying that the public option for health care being debated in Congress is "gaining momentum."
"I'm not prepared to [concede] at all," Specter told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "I think the public option is gaining momentum. We had a forceful speech by President Obama yesterday on his Saturday talk show, emphasizing the importance of a robust public option."
Added the senator: "I'm not going to step back a bit."Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, until last April a Republican, has pulled... more
-
-
In a bold push to pass a public option for insurance coverage, a progressive advocacy group is launching an ad campaign directly calling into question the toughness of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is going up on air in Nevada starting Wednesday with one of its most direct and aggressive ads to date. Titled (unambiguously) "Is Harry Reid Strong Enough?" the spot uses the testimony of a local constituent to raise questions about the Nevada Democrat's effectiveness as majority leader. And in a line designed to stir the pot, the group raises the specter of Democratic voters abandoning the already endangered Reid in 2010 should he fail to get a public option passed.
"I'm your typical swing voter," says Lee Slaughter, a Las Vegas-based health care professional whose insurer refused to cover all of the care she needed for her broken hips. "I voted for Republicans for president, and I voted for President Obama. I also voted for Senator Harry Reid many times. But in 2010, I'll only be voting on one issue. I'm watching to see if Harry Reid is strong and effective enough as a leader to pass a public health insurance option into law. Here in Nevada the majority wants it. Senator Reid, these insurance companies cannot be trusted with out lives. Nevadans want the choice of a public option."
The spot -- obtained exclusively by the Huffington Post -- comes on the heels of similar efforts by the PCCC to push the hand of other Democratic lawmakers. But earlier targets, including Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., were primarily conservative Democrats who either opposed the public option outright or were only tepid endorsers.
Reid, the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, is a self-proclaimed public option proponent. He has, however, also stressed that his current priority is to cobble together the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster on health care reform. And as he takes over the leadership role in merging different variations of health care legislation in the Senate, there have been indications that he's prepared to abandon the government-run plan.
In going after Reid on this front, the PCCC has two important data points at its disposal. A September 2009 poll commissioned by Daily Kos showed that 52 percent of Nevadans support a public option. In that same survey, only 36 percent of respondents said they had favorable view of Reid -- 52 percent said their view was unfavorable.
Hoping that in-state political dynamics can have an impact on the national health care debate, the PCCC is devoting $50,000 to its Nevada ad purchase. That, said the group's executive director Adam Green, should get the spot on air in the Las Vegas media market approximately 200 times. But as the group has done with past ads, it will expand the buy depending on how well it can fundraise online. The goal, Green said, is to raise $100,000 for the campaign.
A request for comment from Reid's Senate office was not immediately returned on Sunday evening.In a bold push to pass a public option for insurance coverage, a progressive advocacy... more
-
-
The following is a statement from Sam Pullen as reported by by Lacy MacAuley of Indie Media.
"My name is Sam Pullen and I will be coordinating the sit-in in Los Angeles on October 15. I am willing to risk getting arrested because I have been personally affected by the Blue Cross insurance company's policies that place profits before patients.
The most traumatic struggle my family has ever gone through was when my mother was sick with multiple myeloma cancer during my teenage years. Although she was covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance, her doctors doctors at the Mayo Clinic told her that her only option for a remission was to undergo a bone marrow transplant- a highly risky procedure. I still remember gathering around our dining room table for a family meeting where my mother explained that if the transplant wasn't successful, she may get sick and die within a few months. She was prepared to risk it in order to have a few more years with her children and husband. Yet she asked us if we were ready to risk losing her if things didn't go well. After an emotional discussion, we made the decision together that we would support her having a bone marrow transplant, no matter what the outcome.
Then Blue Cross denied coverage for the treatment her doctors had recommended. My mom then had to take up the fight for her life with her insurance company. Instead of focusing her energy on preparing for the transplant and healing, she had to battle with a bureaucracy that cared only about profits. She made phone calls, wrote letters, and finally met with an insurance company representative and asked him what he would do if he were the one sick with cancer. She wouldn't leave until Blue Cross agreed to cover her bone marrow transplant.
My mother's bone marrow transplant was successful, and during her remission I shared the most meaningful years I can remember with my Mom. Yet after a five-year battle with cancer, my mother died at age 45 when I was 18 years old.
On October 15, I will honor my mother's spirit by engaging in a sit-in in Los Angeles with a group of courageous individuals who are fed up with the the state of our health system and the greedy insurance companies that care more about money than people. We will demand that insurance companies immediately grant approval for treatment of all their members with life-threatening conditions.
We will be part of one of the largest campaigns of civil disobedience since the civil rights movement. Generations of Americans have fought to obtain health care as a guaranteed right for all, and we are determined to win victory at last. Over 1000 people from every major city will be arrested if insurance companies refuse to meet our demands. We will not back down until profit-driven insurance corporations no longer stand between the American people and the health care they deserve!"
By Sam Pullen
_______________________________________________________________________________
Good luck to same and those who remain in jail for protesting the corrupt government backed corporate welfare state of the health insurance industry, an industry that cannot compete in the open market without government welfare in the form of anti-trust and special legislation. The health insurance industry spends $2 million per day lobbying Congress. They are known to have a strong hand in writing the current public option plan in Congress.
Protesters like Sam, and the doctors on hand at that rally continue to support a single payer system (medicare for all - universal healthcare). As public health care nurse Maureen Cruise states (http://current.com/items/91210625_l-a-arrests-single-payer-is-not-off-the-table.htm) single payer is NOT off the table, as Pelosi stated to the world. It's the people's table.
More sit-in actions are planned and will continue until a universal health care system for all, without the for-profit insurance industry, is in place.The following is a statement from Sam Pullen as reported by by Lacy MacAuley of Indie... more
-
-
Los Angeles 10/15/09 – 12 arrested at the L.A. Anthem Blue Cross offices sit-in at as Maureen Cruise RN, public health care nurse, explains why single payer is not off the table. Along with a contingent of doctors at this recent sit-in, Cruise believes universal health care (a.k.a. single payer or medicare for all) is the only option. As Dr. Jo Olson told me, single payer is the only fiscal and moral solution. She has been working for a single payer system for the past five years. Nurse Cruise was an L.A. public health care nurse at numerous clinics until they all closed with the recent economic downturn. As she explains, 122 people die every day for lack of health care in the U.S. More die every day because they are denied health care from insurance companies despite paying their high premiums. People are forced into medical debt and foreclosure to pay for health care, unlike any other country. “What kind of country does this to it’s people?” she asks.
Nurse Cruise goes on to say that Pelosi’s announcement to the world that single payer is off the table was a ploy to make everyone forget about it and go for a public option instead, a public option written by and for the insurance industry, which spends over a million dollars per day lobbying Congress. The public option, as she says, is an insurance industry bailout, because with our economic downturn and the insurance industry’s annal retentive (my words) policy of raising rates to make up for losses, they are losing customers and so they look to the deep pockets of our government in the corporate welfare state we call America. But as long as we don’t have a viable health care system without the for profit insurance factor, and as long as we don’t have universal health care, people will continue to rally.
It’s interesting that the right tea baggers agree with the left in this area, that government bailout spending is wrong. But the right has been deluded by the right wing bumper sticker mentality media propaganda into believing that it is an Obama socialism agenda at fault. In fact it is a Wall Street corporate welfare agenda, since as cruise and many others agree, Wall Street owns Congress, and seemingly the Presidency as well.
But the bottom line is that, by law and on paper, this is still a democracy for and by we the people, not the corporations; and so the people have taken to the streets, lead by doctors and health care professionals like nurse Cruise, Dr. Olson and many others. They hold rallies and sit-ins around the country and get arrested in protest (http://mobilizeforhealthcare.org/2009/10/16/everyday-americans-arrested-at-health-insurance-company-offices-in-nine-cities-yesterday). Dr. Susie Baldwin calls the public option a government insurance industry jobs program (http://current.com/items/91088270_public-option-obamas-health-insurance-jobs-program.htm), which leads me to wonder, why can’t the insurance industry make an honest living selling a service that people need? Why must they resort to living off the government, pushing Congress to make laws forcing people to buy their worthless product which amounts to a mafioso payoff to keep their useless thug industry alive. Why must the insurance industry live on government corporate welfare? Are they too lazy to get a real job and pay their way like the rest of us?
As Dr. Paul Papenek told me that people don’t need actuaries, they need doctors and nurses. Shouldn’t we forsake the misguided careers of insurance professionals, not only for the 45,000 lost lives every year, but also for the high cost and fiscal deterioration of our country due to the waste, fraud and spending due to a corrupt monopolistic socialized corporate welfare state insurance industry that preys upon all Americans for it's very survival.
Video also on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN939sSdrls
Parts of this clip will be included in a feature film "Got Healthcare": http://outinthestreetfilms.comLos Angeles 10/15/09 – 12 arrested at the L.A. Anthem Blue Cross offices sit-in... more
-
-
Senator Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate health committee, predicted Friday that Congress would pass sweeping health care legislation before Christmas. And he said it would include a new government insurance plan — the so-called public option — which would compete with private insurers.
“The vast majority of the Senate Democratic caucus is for the public option we have in our bill,’’ which was approved by the health committee in July, Mr. Harkin said.
A competing bill approved this week by the Senate Finance Committee does not include a public insurance plan, but would set up private nonprofit insurance cooperatives across the country.
Mr. Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, said Congress would probably have to “go outside the health care system’’ to raise revenue to finance coverage of the uninsured. “That’s what the House has done,’’ Mr. Harkin said, and House leaders can “make a pretty strong argument’’ for that approach.
The main health care legislation in the House would impose a surtax on high-income people. By contrast, the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee would raise revenue within the health care system - - by imposing an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans and by requiring insurers and makers of drugs and medical devices to pay annual fees to the federal government.
Some Democrats have tailored their proposals to appeal to moderate Republicans. The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, won support for his bill from one Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.
But in response to a question, Mr. Harkin indicated that he was not overly concerned about getting Ms. Snowe’s vote for a final bill.
“It’s not so important who you get on the bill,’’ Mr. Harkin said. “What’s important is getting it done right.’’
If Congress decides to tax high-cost insurance policies, Mr. Harkin said, it should increase the thresholds in Mr. Baucus’s bill. Under the bill, insurance plans would generally be subject to the tax if premiums were more than $8,000 for individual coverage or $21,000 for family coverage.
The tax is expected to raise more than $200 billion over 10 years. Mr. Harkin has long been an ally of organized labor, and labor unions are fighting this proposal, which they describe as a tax on middle class benefits.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, is combining the bills approved by the Finance Committee and by Mr. Harkin’s panel, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Mr. Reid said he hoped the full Senate would begin debate on the package later this month.
Though Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to the legislation, Mr. Harkin sounded confident.
“We are in an irrevocable position,’’ Mr. Harkin said. “The momentum is there. We will not be stopped by obstructionists. We will have a bill on the president’s desk before Christmas. And yes, it will have a public option.’’
Insurance companies say that a government-run plan could drive them from the market. But Mr. Harkin said, “I do not expect them to lose business unless they have products that are overpriced for the value.’’Senator Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate health committee, predicted Friday that... more
-
-
The Yes Men screen their film "The Yes Men Fix the World" and their audience goes to Whole Foods to protest Macky's opposition to the Public Option.The Yes Men screen their film "The Yes Men Fix the World" and their audience... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned her Senate counterparts Thursday that she intends to fight hard for a government-run health care plan as part of any comprehensive overhaul bill.
Pelosi's adamant defense of the politically polarizing public option puts her on a potential collision course with the Senate Finance Committee, which dropped the idea from its sweeping $827 billion proposal.
Democratic Senate leaders have not yet indicated whether they will include the option when they combine the Finance Committee's legislation with a separate measure advanced by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
If the House and Senate manage to pass health care reform bills, a conference committee would then negotiate a final version requiring approval from both chambers before going to President Obama for his signature.
"I want our conferees to have the most muscle for the middle class when they go to the table [to negotiate with the Senate]," Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"Why would you throw [people] into the lion's den of the insurance industry without the leverage [of a public option]? Our House position is what we will go in there to fight for," she said.
Several top Democrats, including Pelosi, have questioned whether it is possible to contain spiraling medical costs without creating a public option to serve as a check on private insurers.
Republicans and some conservative Democrats oppose the government-run insurance option, saying it would drive private insurers from the market and eventually bring a government takeover of the health care system.
...More...WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned her Senate counterparts Thursday... more
-
-
~Recent polls find continued support for public option~
CBS News: 62 percent favor government offering "a government administered health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in an October 5-8 CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 62 percent said they would support the plan.
Ipsos/McClatchy: 53 percent said "public health insurance plan" is necessary to ensure access to health care. In an October 1-5 Ipsos/McClatchy poll, 53 percent of respondents said that the statement, "It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality healthcare" was "closest to your opinion," rather than the statement that "[a]ccess to quality healthcare for all Americans can be achieved without having to create a public health insurance plan."
Rasmussen Reports: 46 percent favor creation of "government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option." When respondents were asked in an October 2-3 Rasmussen poll whether they would "favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan," 46 percent said they would favor the plan, and 37 percent were opposed.
Quinnipiac University: 61 percent support option of "government health insurance plan." When asked in a September 29-October 5 Quinnipiac University poll, "Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 61 percent said they would support the plan.
Pew Research Center: 55 percent favor "government health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in a September 30-October 4 Pew Research Center poll if they would favor or oppose "[a] government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans," 55 percent said they would favor the plan.
~Survey finds majority support for public option among doctor~
Mount Sinai School of Medicine poll: 63 percent favor option of public or private insurance. A survey conducted by Dr. Salomeh Keyhani and Dr. Alex Federman of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that 63 percent of the 2,130 physicians surveyed randomly said they "support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. An additional 10 percent of doctors support an entirely public health system."
~Evidence undermines claim that a public option would be costly~
CBO: Senate bill's public plan does "not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections." In its July 2 preliminary analysis of the Senate HELP Committee's bill, CBO found that, in the words of CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, the public option "did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates -- and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."
House, Senate bills require premiums to cover costs of public plan. Both the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP Committee's bill require the public plan to charge premiums sufficient to cover administrative costs as well as the cost of enrollees' benefits.
CBO reportedly found original House public plan saves $110 billion. Congress Daily reported that House leaders "released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer." Congress Daily further reported:
more at link...~Recent polls find continued support for public option~
CBS News: 62 percent favor... more
-
-
Do something!
Weiner and Kucinich need grassroots support for their amendments now. The Kucinich amendment gives states the single payer option. Because a single payer system won't happen in this Congress, the state by state option is an alternative.Do something!
Weiner and Kucinich need grassroots support for their amendments now.... more
-
-
Just hours after the Senate Finance Committee approved a long-delayed health care bill, the Senate majority leader is facing intense pressure from liberals to include a "public option" in the health care bill that comes to the Senate floor.
And one of the loudest calls is coming from a member of his own leadership team.
Sen. Charles Schumer, the third-ranking member of Senate Democratic leadership, made clear on MSNBC last night that inclusion of the public option is a decision that will fall to Reid. He laid out a strategy where the 60-vote threshold for movement in the Senate--something that's stymied Democratic legislative effort this year--would actually give Democrats an advantage.
"Leader Reid has the option of putting in the final bill," sand Schumer, D-N.Y., per Talking Points Memo. "If he puts it in the final bill, in the combined bill, then you would need 60 votes to remove it. And there clearly are not 60 votes against the public option. And so we're urging him to do that, and he's seriously considering it."
...More...Just hours after the Senate Finance Committee approved a long-delayed health care... more
-
-
Rep. Anthony Weiner has launched a new website to build public pressure to push for health care reform. Today the health insurance industry announced that they intend to increase insurance rates no matter what Congress does. They are not happy with the public option. They are going to get new customers with the public option because it will require everyone to have health insurance. However, the insurance industry says that penalties imposed under the new plan for not having insurance are not strong enough.
Hence the squealing pig.
Weiner says that this response makes a stronger case for the public option and will drive Congressmen to lean toward the public option plans.
I love this guy.Rep. Anthony Weiner has launched a new website to build public pressure to push for... more
-
-
Dr. Jo Olson, at the recent "Mad as Hell Doctors" rally in Hollywood, talks about the futility of the public option that she seems to think is failed from the start, and how the only real choice, and the eventual necessity and outcome will be a single payer system. So all you fear mongering socialism-phobes better get on some sustainable medication, if you have any insurance to cover it, because it looks like there will be a single payer system coming to America. As Dr. Olson says, it's inevitable and only a matter of time before someone has the guts (or no other choice but) to make it happen.
Portions of this raw and uncut video from Out in the Street Films will be used in an upcoming feature length documentary film "Got Healthcare?"
See http://outinthestreetfilms.com for more.Dr. Jo Olson, at the recent "Mad as Hell Doctors" rally in Hollywood, talks... more
-
