Health care, Schumer waters down public option
At Open Left, I found this little ditty:
¶The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.
¶The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.
¶The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.
¶To prevent the government from serving as both “player and umpire,” the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market.
In addition, Mr. Schumer said, the public plan should be required to establish a reserve fund, just as private insurers must maintain reserves for the payment of anticipated claims. And he said the public plan should be required to provide the same minimum benefits as private insurers.
Is he listening to us at all?
Related posts:
[...] raised valid concerns many are having about Sen. Shumer’s compromise healthcare plan in her quick post in our Turning Points section. Jason Rosenbaum of HCAN, over at DailyKos, has a point-by-point response to concerns about the [...]
[...] Here is my take- While Single Payer indicates having only one form of health care coverage, which would be publicly funded, as in Medicare for all (HR676) paid for by tax dollars, Public Option refers to a choice you would have. You could choose a private, for profit health insurance where you can pick and choose your coverage according to your individual needs funded by you, personally. Or you could choose the, “Public Option”, also (I would hope) paid for by tax dollars (as opposed to Schumer’s idear.) [...]