Public option roars back to life
Sources tell me that the White House is getting very close to a decision to put its muscle behind the “opt out” public insurance option created by Senator Thomas Carper (D-Del.) as modified by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
The approach would create a national health insurance program while permitting each state to ‘opt-out’ of the plan or come up with its own public plan to compete with private insurers. As a “fall-back” position, the White House is considering supporting Sen. Carper’s initial proposal of an ‘opt in’ program whereby states would be permitted to launch their own public option with some federal support.
In a plot twist that nobody saw coming, the private insurance industry may have done what most experts and analysts believed to be the impossible – single-handedly revived the public insurance option.
After spending enormous amounts of money in what appeared to be a successful effort to defeat the public option, the health insurance industry now looks to have badly overplayed its hand by attacking the provisions of the Baucus bill that weakened the penalties Americans would pay for failing to purchase the health insurance industry’s products. The industry’s desire for more customers – or, more precisely, the greed of Wall Street who, I’m told, was behind the decision to attack the Baucus plan due to falling share prices – led the industry to surprise the White House with the issuance of a PriceWaterhouse Coopers report indicating that the Baucus bill would result in the price of insurance rising dramatically, rather than bringing prices under control.
The report was a serious error by an industry that has, traditionally, shown remarkable political savvy. The public didn’t buy the negative report and Congress got angry, opening up a can of whup-ass on the health insurers by moving quickly to begin the process of revoking their anti-trust exemption in retribution for the industry’s bad behavior.
How did the health insurance industry go so wrong after decades of great political success?
They forgot that no matter how concerned the public might be about government getting more involved in our health care, most Americans still hold the government in higher regard than private insurance companies.
While government may not do the job as efficiently as the private markets, when it comes to health care, Medicare pretty much does what it promises to do. Maybe the program costs more than what we think it should; maybe it is inefficient and sloppy; maybe it tolerates too much fraud and abuse. Still, when participants get sick, they aren’t left untreated or bankrupt.
Can we say the same for the private health insurance companies?
The White House is reading the tea-leaves and has not missed the turn in public sentiment (this week’s WashPo/ABC Poll reveals that 57% of Americans support a pubic option.) Yet many Democratic Senators, along with Independent Joe Lieberman –who, for reasons that escape me completely, continues to be permitted a seat in the Democratic caucus – have stubbornly held on to their objections.
But there is movement.
One key vote, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), has indicated a willingness to take the ‘opt-in’ approach seriously. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) could be another favorable vote should the ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ provision make it into the Senate bill. Lincoln had been a supporter of a public insurance option before she turned against it due to a strong challenge to her seat.
But the man to watch is Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a leader of the Senate Blue Dogs and a true wild card in the drive for health care reform, who has said -
…if a party leader is asking some of us to enable the passage of legislation that we think would be harmful to the people of our state, I don’t think that’s a fair thing to ask.
Via Indystar
Essentially, the ‘opt-in’ and ‘opt-out’ approach takes Democratic senators, like Evan Bayh, off the hook with their constituents back home. If their state doesn’t want to play, their senator will have reserved to their state’s voters the right to take a pass. If a state does wish to participate, their senator will have brought home the victory.
The Republicans, on the other hand, who will likely stand pat in opposition, will be left empty handed and remain the party of “no”, having voted to deny their home state the opportunity to make a decision as to whether or not they want in on the program.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Public Option Has Enough Votes In Senate To Pass: ABC News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/public-option-has-enough-_n_330481.html
Wel..that isn’t really what the article says. It just says its back from the dead. A good thing, but let’s keep the representations honest.
In response to another comment. See in context »Boy I’m looking forward to wetting my whistle with some of Mexico’s finest!
And I’ll be thrilled to have the opportunity to send it! But don’t jinx this – it is far from being done. Also, I fear that what may be achieved is the “opt in” which is far less desirable than the opt out as it puts pressure on the states to create a program at a difficult time for the states. A victory would, in my estimation, be the opt out.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m very comfortable with “opt out” a real gift to the Dems and very short sighted on the part of the GOP.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by RayBeckerman and mojustice, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Public option roars back to life http://bit.ly/1CsGRX [...]
[...] Updated 23 mins agoActive Topic:Politics22 mins agoPublic option roars back to life Rick Ungar The Policy Page2 hours agoCancer Gurus, CDC – Whom can you trust? Fran Johns Boomers and [...]
Love the “ROAR” in the head … fingers crossed except when writing to every senator …
Wouldn’t either opt option disallow individuals from choosing the government option if their state chose differently? I am from a traditionally conservative state which is likely to go for whatever Rush or Beck is in favor of at the time? I lean toward Obama’s choices and if my state makes the oposite choice I would be stumped.
yes. that’s the bad news. This is why I favor the opt out. It is harder for a state to take a pass when they really don’t have to do anything but allow their residents to join or not join. With the ‘opt in’ plan, the state would have to organize their own program, less likely to happen in states like yours.
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow.
Hello Rick,
I think that there was another card that got played, and that was the fact that the insurance industry enjoys exception from anti-trust laws. For all of their talk about “competion” insurance companies have profited from the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 U.S.C. § 1011) which exempted the insurance industry from federal antitrust laws. It was passed after the SCOTUS ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533) that insurance was covered under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. The entire health insurance industry is dominated by a handful of insurance companies, in Alabama 89% of all health insurance is supplied a single firm, Blue Cross of Alabama while in North Dakota, it is 90%. Now there is a move to repeal the 1945 law. Where they holding that one back for the right moment?
I KNEW that PricewaterhouseCoopers study would get people pissed off.
I summed it up as such at the time… “today the insurance industry made the case for government run health care better than any Democrat could have.”
http://trueslant.com/justingardner/2009/10/13/yes-lets-trust-the-insurance-industrys-numbers/
Justin there is another issue going here too, the way this White House operates. I’ve been arguing for months with pals both on and off (just ask Rick) that there will be a robust public option. You really need to look at how Obama won the Democratic nomination to understand how he has waged this battle over health care. Obama never shows his cards till the very last minute. We’ve grown far too used to watching politicians who are victim to the 24 hour news cycle – sound bite mentality. His handling of the current Afghanistan situation is another perfect example of how this president operates.
Another point, the best friend health care reform has had is the GOP base and Obama knew that letting the media focus on things like the teabaggers, birthers, and tenthers would ultimately serve him very very well.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] just a quick note on competition from a commenter on one of Rick Ungar’s posts: [...] insurance companies have profited from the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 U.S.C. § 1011) [...]