What makes a robust public option? In trying to distinguish it from Kent Conrad’s "faux" public plan, we are using the HCAN definition:
- National and available everywhere: A strong public health insurance option will be a national public health insurance program, available in all areas of the country. The insurance industry is made of of conglomerates that have national reach. In order to have the clout to compete with the insurance industry and keep them honest, the public health insurance option must be national as well.
- Government appointed and accountable: The entire problem with private health insurance is that they aren’t accountable to you or me. A public health insurance option must have a different incentive. A public health insurance option doesn’t have to be a government entity necessarily, but its decision makers must be appointed by government and must be accountable to government.
- Bargaining clout: The whole point of health reform is to lower health care costs. Clearly, the insurance industry has failed to lower costs when left to their own devices. As the President says, we need a strong public health insurance option to lower rates, change the incentives in our health care system, and keep the industry honest.
- Ready on day one: The private health insurance industry has utterly failed to control health care costs or provide their customers the quality they’ve paid through the nose for. With one person going bankrupt every 30 seconds due to health care costs, we cannot afford to wait any longer for a real fix. We need the public health insurance option to start lowering prices now. That means no trigger.
This is distinct from Blue Cross Kay Hagan’s call for the states to have "co-ops." What that means: severely limited bargaining clout. Pfizer wins.
21 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
TIGER JANE!
that’s not what i would call robust — what happened to scarecrow’s list?
Please, at least use the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s criteria instead.
Fight, Jane.
So, if all of those things are true, why are we building the for-profit health insurance companies into the system permanently?
that’s a great idea!
i have read that in the House plan, public insurance would not be available until 2013, and that this is a noncontroversial thing – that the phase-in is four years, just coincidentally by pure chance coming on line AFTER the next Presidential election.
2013 is not what i think of as “day one”. that’s a long time to wait. lots of sickness and financial disaster. what’s up with that?
Jane, one of the critical distinctions between HCAN’s criteria, which are consistent with Chuck Schumer’s “compromise” public plan, and those of the CPC is that the CPC insists that the public plan be government administered and that it adapt — to the greatest degree possible — the existing infrastructure in place with Medicare.
This would make the CPC’s public plan much more single-payer-ready if (IMO, when) the for-profit/government hybrid experiment collapses.
(Scarecrow should weigh in, as I’m not sufficiently conversant with the criteria s/he has been developing.)
Good idea, ralphbon. Add in:
#5. Single payer ready.
here’s the post:
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5906
More bullshit.
When Hank Paulson’s net worth was in grave danger last fall, he didn’t have to wait 4 years; he wrote a 3 page letter requesting 700 billion dollars, screamed “the (financial) sky is falling”, and it was done.
We the people should get the same “express” service when it comes to something even more important — our lives.
even if we have slightly different ideas about what we’re asking for, i think we can all still use the fdl whipping tool to get phone numbers and share info (there’s a spot for “more detail”).
5A)
No prohibitions against individual states implementing their own single payer legislation (e.g. SB 810)
Jane,
I agree with all of these pillars as necessary for adequate health care in America save one.
I disagree with the knee jerk reaction and disinformation campaign HCAN has against coops.
Historically speaking, the first Universal Health Care system in the world was in Germany and it was achieved by uniting a series of smaller health care groups like coops. These coops are now regulated by the federal government and provide health care that is some of the best in the world according to WHO. It appears that the more local the control of your health care the more responsive it is to your needs and the more likely you are to be happy with it. These coop do indeed negotiate with pharmaceutical companies in large blocks, driving down the costs of their health care. They also provide a place for collective lobbing of their government on health issues.
Has it occurred to you that our government is not under public control and that is the main reason that we can not get a health care bill passed? Having your option under Congressional control could actually play against your needs. Congress could be paid off by the industry to make the public option work so poorly that it is abandoned by the majority of people.
John:
Agreed, though it would be nice to see the post updated, if we’re doing this on the fly…
I don’t know how to craft the language, but I think 5A should also include the ability of states to band together into regional associations for single payer — like VT and ME, say.
Yes! On items 1-4 and Yes! to number 5: single payor ready.
Got any links on that, Dr A? It’s interesting.
You might like these numbers I threw together
I like it!
Your health is not a commodity.
Your health is not a profit center.
Single payer now.