Yes, I will admit it, I watched/listened to several hours of debate on CSPAN. Anyone who really wants to understand the process of legislation should watch. First, almost all the members, whether a D or an R debated with professionalism and respect. It came down to a difference in ideology and not who was a “real” patriot and who was not. I was truly impressed. This is what I learned. The Rockefeller Amendment was the public option and it failed 8-15, click here to read more.
What that simply means is that people could buy into Medicare if they so chose. It was NOT the same as an entitlement because you had to pay the entire cost. Now, CBO, said that initially there would be approximately 8 million participants, but within a few years, the total estimated number would go to 6 million. What the public option would do, is guarantee real competition. It isn’t enough to have the “exchange” model that this package is promoting. One thing ALL members agreed upon was that there needed to be REAL competition. Over half the states had only a few providers that would compete against each other, THAT is not true competition.
What blew me away was that even a few Republicans agreed that a “non profit” insurance company would be the key to bringing down prices. I believe it was Senator Rockefeller who replied “well, if we could water a public option like grass, and have it grow, that would be great, but that is NOT going to happen.”
“We need a public option to create competition and bring down costs,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who will bring up a separate public option amendment later in the committee markup.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that by 2015, about 8 million people would sign up for Rockefeller’s plan, though that number would decline as pay rates to medical providers rise above what Medicare pays after two years. Over 10 years, Rockefeller’s public option would save the federal government $50 billion, the CBO projects.
Medicare is unsustainable because of waste and skyrocketing health care costs. Bring down health care and you resolve a majority of that problem. Private Insurance companies had a net profit almost 500 billion dollars last year. Enough is enough.
MH, you are a goddess for watching and reporting this stuff. Truthfully, it’s way over my head. Insurance stuff has always confused the hell out of me.
Elena is the goddess, not me.
Interstate health insurance accessibility would be a great start, and would increase competition and decrease costs. The Healthcare Choice Act was first introduced by Republicans in 2005, reintroduced on 2007 and again in July of this year. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners are strongly oppposed, go figure.
Emma,
I agree with that premise, and the “exchange” will accomplish much of that, however, it is not enough. Here is one reason why.
“Another potential problem with eliminating restrictions on cross-state insurance is that it would accelerate consolidation in the health insurance industry. Cody Willard at MarketWatch says companies like BCBS, Wellpoint, and United Health are gobbling up independent insurers at a frightening pace, in the process becoming lobbying giants that deploy their resources to prevent reform.”
This is a long read, but pretty comprehensive I think.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/20/769992/-Why-We-Need-the-Public-Option,-and-Why-Co-ops-Dont-Fit-the-Bill
But I’ve also heard the same argument relative to hospital consolidatiion, which will increase under reform as hospitals struggle to be profitable.
Fox is so biased, but then you quote from Daily Kos?
Emma,
Don’t look at the Daily Kos, look at the reports contained within the post. It’s interesting, there was a time when hospitals were also non profit. I wish there were a book that could historically look at the rise of health care costs and the rise of big health care insurance companies. I think in our endeavor to be all capitalism and let free market rule, we have finally hit the proverbial brick wall, and slammed into it pretty darn hard, the wall street collapse has shown us that. Government has a role, not as an all encompassing entity, but as a partner with its citizens.
What are your thoughts on Wendell Potter, the VP from Cigna that finally quit because he couldn’t stand seeing what the insurance companies were doing to people. He has testified before Congress and strongly said that without a viable public option, i.e. not for profit insurance, there would be no meaningful reform.
Elena – Your next to last sentence tells the tale.
“Private insurance companies had a net profit of almost 500 billion
dollars last year.” That is – NET PROFIT of 500 BILLION. What
a deal – for them.
They are going to fight to protect their monster cash machine at
all cost. They can fill a lot of plain envelopes with $1,000 bills
out of, for them, petty cash.
Of course, after over 20 years of working in public relations for Cigna and Humana, Mr. Potter was very much part of the problem, wasn’t he?
Interesting quote from the former PR exec: “More and more people, he said, are falling victim to “deceptive marketing practices” that encourage them to buy “what essentially is fake insurance,” policies with high costs but surprisingly limited benefits.”
Whistleblowing on himself. Interesting. But there are two sides to his story.
I am under no illusion that my health insurer always has my best interests at heart, trust me. But how about starting with ensuring that people can actually understand the benefits they have? Often people will choose a low-option plan to save money and not really pay attention to the exclusions and the copays. “Explanations of Benefits” can be very confusing and difficult even for a very well-educated consumer. But people will often put more effort into researching a car they want to buy than they will expend in sitting down to choose the best health plan to meet their needs. And the complex language doesn’t help.
And I am by no means defending the insurance companies here. Their profits and CEO salaries ARE obscene, and offend me way more than the auto execs and the AIG execs. It’s just that something doesn’t sit quite right with Mr. Potter’s story.
This year I am paying more for my healthcare and actually, less is now covered; I have both higher costs and co-pays. Plus, my school system doesn’t cover as much as surrounding school systems (both large and small). Wow, thanks for the benefits!
When something turned up on a CT-scan, I found myself really wondering whether I needed that follow-up in 6 months…the CT-scan will cost me $200 plus specialist and other test fees. How ridiculous that we should have to gamble with our health that way…the sad part is that I have it MADE compared to so many others in this country.
Emma,
I would agrue that people can only AFFORD a low option plan. Having experienced first hand, trying to pay for insurance as a private person with a pre-existing condition, it was impossible. IF I were without insurance and had a relapse, it could cost thousands, worse case scenario, due to mounting health care costs, I would have been forced to declare bankruptcy. So many people are forced to do that and we ALL end up paying.
Poor Richard,
Ahh, the beauty of lobbying. Have you read the book “So much Damn Money” ? It talks about the beginning of money, PACS, and lobbying and their influence on public policy.
Emma,
Mr. Potter appears to have grown a conscience and then ACTED upon it, a pretty rare quality I would say.
Check out how much they are spending on ad on TV and in periodicals.
It is a toss up who are the greediest–pharacutical companies or health care companies.
If one isn’t confused enough to start with, throw in the greed with the politics.
I hope everyone realizes that there is almost 500 BILLION dollars of subsidies to insurance companies in this current finance bill. 500 BILLION! Is THAT capitalism or is it government handouts/socialsim to insurance companies? How is THAT acceptable but a non profit/public option to ensure REAL competition is somehow against the “market” concept?
I’ve brought up the costs of tv advertising for prescription drugs in a recent thread. Who thell is going to ask their doctor about a particular blood thinner while they are mid-stroke?
Note that I said above that I am not defending insurance execs making obscene salaries on the backs of sick people.
I will be the number one champion for any healthcare plan that Congress does not exempt itself or other feds from. If it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for me.
I agree Emma!
You know, it’s not that we want the status quo. Most conservatives just believe that a government run program will not have the same incentive to remain solvent and that a private company does. It would almost certainly go way over budget and add to our deficit or force cuts in other areas. I am not opposed to the “trigger” option Sen. Snow is proposing, because we do have to get costs under control and make health care affordable for all Americans. However let’s see if strict regulation and increased competition in the private sector can accomplish this first.
What I’d like to know is why the Republican amendments to take 3 days to read the bill before voting on it failed. Apparently, no one wants anyone to be able to take the time to read it, before voting on it. Apparently they are afraid someone will find out some details in the bill that aren’t too good. What in the world is wrong with taking 3 days to read the bill before voting on it? Oh, I know – the usual excuse – it is urgent, no time to waste, we must rush it through.
Someone please explain to me why those amendments were voted down.