Comments on: The Public Option: Tedicare for All! http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/ Politics for liberal newsgeeks Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:51:50 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: unionave http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41224 unionave Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:44:47 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41224 <p>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” .</p> 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” .

]]> By: schoolpsyc http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41191 schoolpsyc Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:50:42 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41191 <p>At your urging, I created some Cafe Press items with my teddy bear image. All profits will come to your public option campaign.</p> <p><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/landofpuregold/6867730" rel="nofollow">http://www.cafepress.com/landofpuregold/6867730</a></p> 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

]]> By: TarheelDem http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41093 TarheelDem Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:59:01 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41093 <p>Well, here are the small-state Senators (per Nate Silver)</p> <p><a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/real-problem-with-senates-small-state.html" rel="nofollow">The Real Problem with The Senate’s Small-State Bias</a></p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: WordBloom http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41091 WordBloom Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:40:10 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41091 <p>“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</p> <p>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?<br /> AhHmmm FDL!</p> “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!

]]> By: TarheelDem http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41089 TarheelDem Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:20:34 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41089 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: selise http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41087 selise Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:15:50 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41087 <p>then i’ll guess that maybe you didn’t read my questions @14. here they are again (with clarification):</p> <p>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)<br /> 2. do you have a different analysis? (if so, please share)<br /> 3. or are you looking at a different version of the bill? (if so which one?)</p> <p>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.</p> <p>you have characterized the HELP committee bill as “strong” and i’m asking questions about <em><strong>your</strong></em> characterization.</p> 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.

]]> By: WordBloom http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41085 WordBloom Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:58:53 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41085 <p>“…the intent of these limitations is to prevent a rush to the exits by employers.”</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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?</p> “…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?

]]> By: TarheelDem http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41084 TarheelDem Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:56:15 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41084 <p>See my comment at 29</p> See my comment at 29

]]> By: Phoenix Woman http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41083 Phoenix Woman Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:54:57 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41083 <p>Heh! I wouldn’t have linked to <a href="http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/reform-without-public-option-revenues-profits-for-health-insurers-set-to-soar/" rel="nofollow">(Not At All) “Sloppy Tom”’s post</a> 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.</p> <p>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?</p> 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?

]]> By: Phoenix Woman http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41080 Phoenix Woman Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:51:02 +0000 http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/27/the-public-option-tedicare-for-all/#comment-41080 <p>Here are the things to keep in mind:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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?</p> 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?

]]>