Public option gains support
Find a Conversation
Public option gains support
| Tue, 10-20-2009 - 9:48am |
Public option gains support
CLEAR MAJORITY NOW BACKS PLAN
Americans still divided on overall packages
CLEAR MAJORITY NOW BACKS PLAN
Americans still divided on overall packages
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html?hpid=topnews
Washington Post-ABC News Poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.html?sid=ST2009101902502



They forget who votes them into office.
Reid Leads Democrats In Carving Out Favors for States on Health
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ao9dG2a.w8es
Nevada's unemployment rate just hit 13.9%. That's not counting all the people who have given up looking for a job and/or aren't receiving unemployment benefits. There is NO money to be had anywhere and if the feds expand Medicaid and require matching funds from states, Nevada wouldn't be able to do it.
It is going to get even more popular, because it appears that the public option will reduce the cost of health care reform:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/house-cuts-health-bill-pr_n_327956.html
House Cuts Health Bill Price To $871 Billion: AP Source
ERICA WERNER and DAVID ESPO | 10/20/09
WASHINGTON — House Democrats are aiming to scale back the cost of their health care bill to well below President Barack Obama's preferred price tag by giving the government a strong hand in selling insurance in competition with the private market.
Obama has sought to spend no more than $900 billion over a 10-year period. The initial cost of the House bill was more than $1 trillion. On Tuesday, House Democratic leaders received a new cost estimate of $871 billion from congressional budget umpires who measured a robust version of a so-called public option for health insurance, according to a Democratic aide.
The figures were preliminary because no final decision on the design of the public plan had been made, said the aide, who requested anonymity in discussing the bill because the deliberations were private.
House Democrats worked on their legislation as senior Senate Democrats signaled they intend to try to strip the insurance industry of its exemption from antitrust laws as part of an upcoming debate over health care.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced plans to hold a news conference on the issue Wednesday along with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
If approved, the change would bring the insurance industry under stricter federal regulation. While a 60-vote majority is likely to be required for passage, the decision by top Democrats to seek a vote underscores the antagonism that lately has sprouted between advocates of Obama's ambitious health care plan and insurance companies who are dissatisfied with key features of the legislation.
The House bill with the strong public plan would extend coverage to 96 percent of uninsured Americans and significantly reduce budget deficits.
A $871 billion bill in the House would be in line with the leading Senate bill, the $829 billion measure approved last week by the Senate Finance Committee.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberal lawmakers have joined Obama in calling for a public insurance program as a way to drive down the costs of insurance. Republicans have opposed government-run insurance and vowed to vote against a bill establishing a public option.
Pelosi assembled Democratic lawmakers Tuesday night to try to sell them on her preferred version of the public plan, which would link payment rates to providers to Medicare rates, plus an additional 5 percent for doctors. Moderates have been concerned that those rates are too low and would hurt hospitals and other providers particularly in rural areas.
Several lawmakers said they were getting close to the 218-vote majority needed for the stronger version.
"That's certainly where a large majority of the caucus is," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
Leaders in both the House and the Senate were trying to finalize bills in time to begin floor debate in the next several weeks. Whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would include a public insurance plan in the Senate version was not clear.>>>
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091021_Editorial__A_matter_of_trust.html
The insurance industry may find out that there's something worse than having to compete with a Medicare-style health plan for working-age Americans. How about yanking its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws?
Some lawmakers see a repeal as a good way to inject more price competition and efficiencies into the $2.5 trillion health-care economy.
The head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, Assistant Attorney General Christine A. Varney, told Congress last week that repealing the antitrust law, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, would spur competition and industry reforms.
What really revved up enthusiasm for the idea was the industry release last week of a flawed study on the various health-reform measures under consideration.
The study contended that health-insurance premiums would shoot up under reform, threatening middle-class Americans' coverage. But the study didn't include the value of planned government subsidies for low-income families to buy insurance. Details, details.
President Obama responded through his Saturday radio address by denouncing "deceptive and dishonest ads" and threatening to take away the antitrust exemption.
Nearly 20 years ago, the insurance industry's "Harry and Louise" ads helped sabotage health-care reform. Now it looks as if the industry is at it again, despite pledges to work toward a deal.
As Obama noted, "Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.' Well, not this time."
Insurers say the antitrust exemption allows them to share market data and best practices. The industry says that benefits consumers by reducing costs. Tell that to other businesses that really have to compete and innovate.
Many insurance markets are dominated by a couple of insurers who boost rates by double digits annually. Indeed, the risk of even less competition led Pennsylvania insurance regulators to oppose the merger early this year of the Philadelphia insurance giant, Independence Blue Cross, and Pittsburgh's Highmark.
The threat of eliminating the antitrust exemption could prompt insurers to rethink their opposition to the so-called public option. (That might be even more likely if the president's aides would stop signaling that Obama may sign a reform bill without a public plan.)
The top industry lobbyist, Karen Ignagni of America's Health Insurance Plans, says insurers still want to reform health care. She has raised valid concerns that the Senate Finance Committee proposal will let young, healthy workers delay buying insurance until they get sick, raising costs for all.
But insurers don't help their cause by spinning other details of the reform bills. While the industry can try to dismiss the antitrust threat as a "political ploy," it would be smarter for insurers to commit to reforms that lower costs and expand coverage.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9BFGGSG0
WASHINGTON — Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials, the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry. If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.