Schumer in favor of the Public Option but…
Well, this is a start -(via the Hill) and make no mistake this is good news but as always the devil is in the details.
The healthcare reform bill that emerges from Congress this year will include a government-run public health insurance option, regardless of the bipartisan negotiations seeking a compromise in the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday.
“Make no mistake about it, the president is for this strongly. There will be a public option in the final bill,” Schumer said on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”
Like I said, the devil in the details and with regards to a “public option.” We really don’t know exactly what this is now do we. The previous ‘graf says “government run public health insurance.” Is this what Senator Schumer is looking at?
Schumer emerged earlier this year as a vocal proponent of the public option and offered a model for the plan that he positioned as a compromise itself. Under Schumer’s proposal, which closely resembles what the House and the HELP Committee are considering, the public option would receive no federal funding, be financed entirely by premiums and have to abide by the same insurance regulations as private firms.
Is he talking about a self-financed entity that operates with one hand tied behind its back? Does that mean no negotiations with drug companies to lower the costs? Are we are going to add inefficiency to the government run system to “level the playing field?”
Or are we going to take advantage of the efficiencies in Medicare and its 3% operating expenses.
Self-financed sounds good as Americans pay 5-6K for health insurance per capita, countries like Canada pay 2-3K. Sounds like we are already paying enough to cover everyone - it is only a matter of reallocating the existing spend. But how will this be reallocated?
The House bill and the HELP Committee bill also include a provision requiring individuals to obtain coverage; the Finance Committee is expected to adopt the same policy in its legislation.
Gee, like Massachusetts and that state plan didn’t work or isn’t working very well.
The Public Option is a bone of contention among both proponents and opponents of Health Care Reform. Proponents of the “Public Option” want a public option and if we get one - well, we declare victory and go home. The real question is what kind of victory do we get with a Public Option?
So as always with these things the devil is in the details - let’s not declare victory just yet and go home. Lots more work to do to ensure that the public option provides a viable, sustainable alternative to the current options. Why?
Make no mistake, those who are responsible for managing the status quo, specifically the Insurance companies and the drug companies do not want to see their existing profit driven business model diminished.
Related posts:
[...] told you about Senator Schumer and his support for the “Public Option” in my previous post and suggested that we be weary of ill-defined terms like the “Public [...]
Calling medicare efficient with a 3% operating overhead is the most disingenuous attempt to make it sound viable that I have ever heard. This atrocious government program has projected unfunded obligations of $35 trillion over the next 75 years. Any further increase in any type of government funded health care will balloon the federal debt well past the already obscene levels we have.
How do you expect this country to survive while constantly increasing deficit spending? It doesn’t take an economics degree to see that we are completely on the wrong path.
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
Mike 3% administrative costs is good compared to private plans.
In the past much discussion of the mandate issue has been inaccurate.
The 3% figure is nothing but a red herring when the whole plan is based on massive deficit spending. Your comment about past estimates of the unfunded costs is total garbage. There is no dispute, by anyone, that medicare is a big sucking hole for money we don’t have.
I would like to see the study showing the 3% administrative costs. Does it take into account the costs of employers collecting the taxes? Does it take into account the administrative costs of doctors and other health care providers to comply with the program? I highly doubt it. Who’s putting lipstick on a pig now?
Here’s an excerpt from a study on medicare’s true administrative costs.
It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare’s true costs
with those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sector
insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s
administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic
reporting and tracking systems used by the government.
This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds
that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are
included.
In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs,
about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are
included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though
the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted
money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant
value for those additional dollars.
We also raise an important, although heretofore unrecognized, issue that gives
Medicare an inherent advantage on administrative costs. Because of the higher cost per
beneficiary, Medicare administrative costs appear lower than they really are. If the
numbers were adequately “handicapped” for comparison with the private sector, they
would be in the 6 to 8 percent range.
Finally, like the private sector, Medicare also has to obtain funds to pay claims. But the
cost of raising that money, or borrowing it if the government doesn’t collect it from
taxpayers, is excluded from Medicare administrative cost calculations. While we don’t
in this paper draw any conclusions about what we shall call the “cost of capital” and its
impact on Medicare’s administrative costs, we do want to highlight that those costs
exist and that taxpayers, both today and in the future, must bear those costs.
[...] Chuck Schumer seems to be shifting or obscuring his position on Health Care. He is in favors of a Public Option (Good) except when he isn’t opposed to something that will cause the Public Option [...]