We want our Tedicare!

It’s cuddly, warm, and makes you secure!

public option=tedicare

YES..Brilliant…TEDICARE…! I love it…! Email the White House….?

Go for it!

I prefer TeddyCare though.

oh hell yeah !!

brilliant

Second that. “Tedi” is not a strong enough link.

TEDDYCARE

The right hates it, of course, but they aren’t voting for it anyway. You could name it ReaganCare and they’d still stone it.

True dat. Not enough people remember that Teddy was the one who came up with the concept of “Medicare for All”.

Let’s put it to a vote!

I love it. Have I told you today that you’re brilliant, PW? What a fabulous way to market health care reform!

I like Tedicare. I like TeddyCare a bit better.

And my original contribution: Ted-i-Care. It’s got Teddy and it’s got “I Care”.

Nice.

my support will be for the measure coming out of teddy’s senate health committee; no more and no less!

I love concept of Tedicare so I created a compelling image to go with it. Please feel free to use this and pass it on.

http://twitpic.com/fhekm

PW – have you read,The Senate HELP Committee “public option” will be multiple “options,” and these will be run by insurance companies?

from the post:

When the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed a bill on July 15 creating an anemic “public option” program, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and other “public option” proponents were ecstatic. They welcomed the “public option” in the HELP committee bill, proclaiming it “strong” or “robust.” But the actual provisions in the HELP Committee bill call for numerous “community health insurance options,” not the single “Medicare-like” plan promised by “public option” advocates. That means the individual “options” will probably be as small and weak as the co-ops now under discussion in the Senate Finance Committee. More importantly, these “community options” will almost certainly be run by insurance companies.

this doesn’t sound “strong” to me. do you have a different analysis or are you looking at a different version of the bill?

HR 3200 = TeddyCare… accept no substitutes.

WWTW

I agree Selise. These bills suck. They don’t even take effect until 2013 after two elections. I’m not willing to support bad health care legislation even if it is called Jesus Care.

Great! TeddyCare is a bit better IMO. The public option should be called TeddyCare.

Can you please quote the portion of HR 3200 that outlines a STRONG public option?

Thanks…

I wish I could remember where I saw this, because it’s brilliant. The progressive caucus should reintroduce the Single Payer bill in both house and senate, and call it the “Honoring Rush Limbaugh in 2009 Act”.

Might get passed pretty quickly.

JesusCare! Oh, my, I’m feeling raptured!

I printed your drawing and will attach it to a sign for a rally Saturday in Portland, OR – assuming that’s OK with you.

I’m with you and selise.

DW

PW! if this doesn’t go viral, then the whole “viral” thing is a waste of imagination.

i’m tweeting this, howz about everyone else do the same,
and follow me while you’re at it (siri2k) and i’ll follow you, i need to know who fdl friends are………………on the tweetz, that is.

Teddycare.
this should be a NATIONAL FRIGGIN MOVEMENT!!!

We at the PCCC have launched a campaign advocating precisely for this: name the HELP committee bill “The Kennedy Bill” and immediately pass it. Join us in calling on Harry Reid to do it at HonorKennedy.com
http://honorkennedy.com/t/hk2_comment

you got to it first, selise.

Its clear that Phoenix Woman really doesn’t understand what is in either the Senate HELP bill, or HR3200. Kip Sullivan provides some informed analysis for PNHP of what is actually being offered..

I’m far from someone who thinks that TK deserves the massive level of acolades he’s recieving right now — but IMHO, even worse is the effort by both sides of the “public option” question to exploit Kennedy’s name. Kennedy was for single payer, and only “endorsed” a public option in the HELP bill when he was far too sick to provide leadership for that committee.

PAGE 116 of H.R. 3200
Explains the Establishment of a Public Option. Sec. 221…
This is the bill:
energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

I don’t know that it could be called a “STRONG” public option and the language flirts with an “exchange” too much perhaps, but I certainty don’t want to see anything any weaker… but I’ll let you read it yourself.

Paul;

While you and I have had our differences, I appreciate the fact that you have been consistently pointing out that it would be wise for people to understand precisely what it is that they are supporting.

“Public Option” sounds great, but what, precisely does it mean?

That is not a frivolous or unimportant question.

It is a central question, given the ongoing and obvious duplicity of those who supposedly represent us.

It is bad enough when the people are fooled by the Political CLa$$, but it invites crushing disappointment if not actual disaster when the people fool themselves.

DW

I’m much more interested in tagging the Baucus bill than selling the public option, because the public is already sold on the public option. It’s just Congress that isn’t sold on it.

After seeing the clips of the 1971 debate on healthcare, my suggestion and this is almost exactly the truth is to label the Baucus bill with its 65% coverage:

Nixoncare minus 5%

(Nixon would have made folks pay 30% out-of-pocket, not 35%)

energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
HR3200, page 116, lines 12-17.

i really love what you’ve done with it. i hope i see it everywhere. and then see real health insurance reform.

LOL

Medicare
Tedicare

Love it,PW!

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/2…..-was-sold/

Great link, thanks.

What is a public option? And how does it relate to an exchange?

An exchange is a sales display of various insurance plans (mostly private) that meet the qualifications for being in the exchange. This leaves insurance companies free to sell expensive plans to executives that gold-plate coverage. These plans could be offered by any private, public, or non-profit entity that qualified for the exchange.

The public option might be thought of as Medicare in a box. It is a Medicare-like plan, hopefully paying providers rates based on but not identical to Medicare rates (right now in doubt because of the Energy and Commerce Committee compromise with Blue Dogs). Access to the plan will be limited in certain ways – the rules in the House bill differ from the HELP committee bill; the intent of these limitations is to prevent a rush to the exits by employers, making the public option by default a single-payer plan. In fact, this rush to the exits is the major, although not the only, fear of the insurance industry and why they are trying to remove the public option altogether.

Anyhow, this Medicare in a box plan would be one of the many options in the exchange.

In addition, certain means-tested folks will be subsidized, but it is not clear how broad a selection of plans might receive subsidies. My reading of it is that the exchange qualifies the plans that can receive subsidies and folks receiving subsidies can choose which of the plans in the exchange meets their needs.

The fact that there is a public plan that is not market-priced in an essentially collusive private insurance market means puts a limit on private prices in the exchange if they want to get any of the subsidized business. That means that all purchasers of those private plans will see lower premiums and better coverage. Otherwise, at the first opportunity either they or their employers will opt for the Medicare-in-a-box plan.

That is my reading of the provisions in both bills. There are some substantial differences in detail, but that is the general idea of how it should work.

Selise and Paul Lukasiak: Masaccio’s already answered your questions far better than I could, when you asked them in the thread for his post. He’s fabulous and rather than retype his answers, I’ll just link to him.

TKCare??

would i be correct in guessing that you haven’t read either kip’s or masaccio’s post? i suspect that is the case because kip’s post is on the senate’s help committee bill (which was the topic of my question to you) and masaccio’s post is based on the house tri-committee bill (and so has nothing to do with my question @14).

Here are the things to keep in mind:

1) Unlike what Baucus and the Villagers are currently implying with their constant strumming the “Teddy was a compromiser and that’s how the icky uncompromising Dems must act in order to get health care reform passed”, the very first compromise was to forego immediate and universal single-payer, or “Medicare for all” to use Kennedy’s term. There needn’t be any more.

2) If the public option is as horrible for Americans and as lovely for the insurance industry as certain people claim (many of these people are still apparently fighting the primary wars, which is sad; I’m rather glad that my first pick, Edwards, wound up washing out before his big scandal took him out), then why do the insurance companies hate it nearly as much as they do universal single-payer?

Heh! I wouldn’t have linked to (Not At All) “Sloppy Tom”’s post if I hadn’t read it and your comments and Masaccio’s responses, as well as Paul Lukasiak’s similar comments and Masaccio’s responses.

But I have a question for you: Why are the same corporate health-care industry entities that hate single payer also arrayed against the public option? And why do so many of these same entities favor co-ops instead?

See my comment at 29

“…the intent of these limitations is to prevent a rush to the exits by employers.”

This is a critical point you make, not just in relation to your reading of the bills but also, as it relates to “The Cost Conundrum” (New Yorker Magazine June 1, 2009), which is where many legislators have serious problems with a Strong Public Option.

Forget, for a moment, the insurance money sliding under their doors; what IS the way to prevent the possibility of a financial catastrophe which COULD be caused by a True Public Option?

then i’ll guess that maybe you didn’t read my questions @14. here they are again (with clarification):

1. have you read kip’s post: The Senate HELP Committee “public option” will be multiple “options,” and these will be run by insurance companies? (yes or no will do)
2. do you have a different analysis? (if so, please share)
3. or are you looking at a different version of the bill? (if so which one?)

none of these questions are addressed in masaccio’s post or that comments thread — in fact we’re discussing a different bill and kip’s post has not been mentioned.

you have characterized the HELP committee bill as “strong” and i’m asking questions about your characterization.

A true public option is still an option. If insurance companies have a financial catastrophe, it will be one of their own making, not a result of the creation of a public option.

Because the subsidies apply to all plans qualified for the exchanges, the most commonly stated fear that subsidies will make the public option preferential to private plans is false. The main disadvantage that private plans will have is their cost structure; insurers will have to eliminate all of the bureaucracy that are currently doing pre-certifications and rescissions, and will have to improve their performance in paying providers, which will reduce a lot of their provider relations expenses and callcenters. In addition, they will have to reduce their margins and flatten their salary structure. Finally, they will have to simplify their legal environment so as to reduce the possibility of suits and legal action, reducing the size of their legal departments.

The firewalls in the current bills and the schedule of implementation give private insurers the space they need to make these changes, if they are well-run (a debateable point considering the fact of their opposition to change).

Who really loses if a strong public option passes are the healthcare industry lobbyists. The gravy train will be over because of the cost competitive cost constraints imposed by the public option.

If you look at legislators who have problems with the public option, you find an unsurprising correlation of their problems to the amount of campaign cash they have received from the healthcare industry, and especially the insurance industry.

“If you look at legislators who have problems with the public option, you find an unsurprising correlation of their problems to the amount of campaign cash they have received from the healthcare industry, and especially the insurance industry…” TarheelDem

Perhaps a great new thread would be a list of Congressional opposition to a true Public Option, a list of contributions and amounts they have received from the healthcare industry and their office phone numbers… They’ll be coming back into DC soon and it might behoove us to challenge them, fresh-off their vacations… surely someone has compiled this info already?
AhHmmm FDL!

Well, here are the small-state Senators (per Nate Silver)

The Real Problem with The Senate’s Small-State Bias

What this chart says is that it is easier to compromise a small-state Senators because they need less campaign cash to be competitive in their state. This is from all industries.

I would like to see a full Senate and House chart like this one but showing the amounts that are coming from the healthcare industry.

And what is happening is that when this gets to their constituents, their constituents are challenging them. Max Baucus in the Senate and Jim Cooper (D-TN) in the House have already gotten an earful from their constituents.

At your urging, I created some Cafe Press items with my teddy bear image. All profits will come to your public option campaign.

http://www.cafepress.com/landofpuregold/6867730

For years lobbyist would walk on to the floor of Congress while in session and hand out checks and there was never a refusal from any member of Congress . This happened on a day when the new Cspan camers were broadcasting Congress in session and created a lot of noise from the public . Congress then made a rule that checks should not be handed out while the cameras were broadcasting . Those checks were for favors past and future . (BRIBE : Anything given or promised to induce a person to do something illegal or wrong) . If the Senate accepts the usual checks and does not pass The Unadulterated Public Option it shall forever be known as the “Upper House of Shame” .