There has been a variety of reporting about Nancy Pelosi’s ongoing efforts to whip the necessary votes for a robust public option. She is close to securing 218 votes, but is not there yet. My question is who are the roughly 40-50 Democratic House members fighting to steal $1,400 every year from hard working American families?
The robust public option favored by Nancy Pelosi would pay Medicare rates plus 5%. The CBO said a public option with this reimbursement structure would have premiums roughly 10% lower than private insurance. The CMS concluded the robust public option’s premiums would be roughly 11% cheaper than private insurance. For a family of four, that would equate to roughly $1,400 saving on health care premiums this year.
If a Democratic member of Congress is going to vote to force people to buy health insurance, but deny them a robust public option which could save them $1,400 a year, that is theft, pure and simple. It is using the government to take $1,400 each year directly from the pockets of working class Americans, and place it in the coffers of the private, for-profit health care sector.
If a Democrat wants to fight against helping working class American families save roughly $1,400 a year they should be forced to do so publicly. Hiding behind anonymous whip counts is unacceptable–the time for games and posturing is over. The American people deserve to know who is fighting on their behalf, and who is fighting for the health care industry. Constituents deserve to know which of their representatives are working hard to deny them more affordable health insurance.
8 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
I think you’ve framed that exactly right. There’s nothing wrong with a business making money, but in this field — health care, where people lose their homes to get care other countries seem to provide their citizens without trouble kind of highlights how dysfunctional our system is.
While I say “dysfunctional,” I’m thinking “criminal.”
assuming this is true, the comparison is po to private insurance AFTER reform. not private insurance without reform.
in other words, the cost of reform may mean higher premiums (and/or cost sharing) when compared to no reform and if the increase is more than 10%, even po premiums will be more expensive than private insurance premiums would be without reform.
has anyone (cbo, gao, crs, or other) reported on how hr 3200 (or any of the other bills) are expected to affect costs to consumers? i know i keep harping on this point (that the cbo scoring of only fed costs is incomplete and gives a distorted picture of the cost of reform), but this is really really important. wouldn’t it be useful to know if reform measures being contemplated are going to increase premium costs significantly?
you can bet that if reform causes insurance premium rates to increase, the republicans are going to be screaming about how much the democrats have stolen from hard working americans.
you can bet that if reform causes insurance premium rates to increase, the republicans are going to be screaming about how much the democrats have stolen from hard working americans.
IMO: It is not the citizens fault, It is primarily the fault of the U.S. political system. One rarely mentioned problem is that our “political parties” are really just labels. Private member-based political parties have been effectively outlawed Starting around 1900.
Uniquely, A U.S. parties only real function is raising $$. SEE: What is a Political Party?
Much like the Cheshire cat in the Disney cartoon Alice in Wonderland – political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very independent, entrepreneur, politicians. The next time you vote for a candidate in a primary election – consider Modern U.S. attempts at party platforms
Jack
jesus. Rahm is Fagin, and Steny, Artful Dodger
Jon, selise’s point is a good one. But, in addition, if only the unemployed and those who can’t get insurance anywhere else are eligible for the PO, as in current bills, then even if some version of the current weak PO passes you’ll still have “theft” going on with respect to most employed people because they will not be eligible for the
PO. So, my question is: why are you supporting current versions of the PO by trying to get guys like Harry Reid to include that type of PO in the Senate bill? By doing this won’t you also be complicit in such “thefts?” Why not urge Congresspersons and Senators to enact a PO with universal eligibility and subsidies based on income?
i found some info on projected total national health expenditures in the cms report and posted on it in another of jon’s theads. turns out that hr 3200 is projected to increase costs and then not affect the rate of growth of costs.
yikes! looks to me like stupid policy AND stupid politics. a twofer.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/23/the-health-care-reform-political-time-bomb/