Support for the Public Option Keeps Getting Stronger.
Support for the Public Option Keeps Getting Stronger.
"New Life for the Public Option" is the headline of Dan Balz's excellent article in Sunday's Washington Post. It's not an accident that this powerful idea has made yet another comeback. And it is not surprising that public and Congressional support, always strong, has surged again, just as the insurance industry has ham-handedly tried to manipulate the choices of key decision-makers in the US Senate. In the crucial next few days - and in the weeks to come - advocates of the public option will be arguing that the principle of majority-rule democracy should be allowed to work. And the insurance and drug industries (and Republicans) will be basing their strategy for stopping the public plan on undemocratic procedure called the filibuster.
The public option has been part of the national health care debate since January 2007, when the Economic Policy Institute published Jacob Hacker's Health Care for America plan. From that moment to this, many in the media and the pundit class have periodically dismissed its chances. But that was also the moment that Hacker, Diane Archer and I started having discussions with three essential audiences: leaders of activist citizen organizations, Congressional leaders, and presidential candidates. (For a record of that early organizing, click here.) Our message: a public insurance option is crucial to the success of real reform in
.
Those early conversations and the primary election campaign debates produced a consensus in favor of a public option, as first candidate John Edwards (in February 2007), then Barack Obama (in May), and (in September) Hillary Clinton all came forward with health reform plans based primarily on preserving employment-based health insurance for those who have it and reforming and expanding private health insurance for those who don't. And all three Democratic presidential candidates called for a public insurance plan, like Medicare, that would give Americans choices - and give the private insurance companies real competition that could control health care premiums.
Even though some progressives were committed to a pure single-payer plan, the leaders of many of the major organizations representing millions of Americans - unions, community networks, civil rights groups and health advocates - realized that private insurance companies would not soon be put out of business. Drawing on Hacker's work, these groups came together around a plan for reforming the worst practices of the insurance companies, requiring all but the smallest firms to cover their employees, guaranteeing affordable coverage to everyone through an insurance exchange, and offering a public insurance option as one of many choices in the exchange. The Health Care for America Now! coalition, now representing 1,000 citizen organizations and millions of people, was built around these principles - and HCAN has consistently insisted that if you take away one part of the plan -- whether it is affordable coverage, insurance reform, or the public option - and the whole enterprise of building reform on a mixed system might just collapse and end up throwing money at the insurance and drug companies without achieving real reform or universal coverage.
HCAN also formalized outreach to Members of Congress and candidates for House and Senate in the buildup to the 2008 elections - though thousands of town meetings and local accountability sessions. By the time of the election, over half of the new Congress had publicly embraced the HCAN health reform principles. And two candidates for executive office, Obama and Biden had also signed on to those principles. The growing support for the public option in Congress reflects HCAN's steady and creative organizing - writing the new textbook for a citizen majority overcoming some of the most powerful special interests in
Support for the public option in the Congress has grown steadily as Members focused on the healthcare debate, and many single-payer liberals realized the public plan is the closest they can conceivably come in today's Congress. But the latest surge of support has come from moderate Democrats and even Blue Dogs, who have come to the realization that if they are going to vote to force their constituents to purchase health insurance, they had better make sure they have a lot of choices - including an affordable public option. And they are realizing that if a public option can keep insurance premiums down, then the Federal government can afford to free up more subsidy funds to keep premiums reasonable for middle-class constituents, while keeping the overall cost of the health reform bill under a trillion dollars in the first 10 years.
As he overcame his conservative hesitations (and a lifetime of caution) and prepared to cast his vote for the historic 1964, Republican Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen quoted Victor Hugo: "Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come." And that helped get enough "moderate" votes to overcome a filibuster by Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans. Today Republicans are marching almost completely united in the opposite direction as historic reform. But, as the growing support for the public insurance option demonstrates, Democrats will find a way to unite in the Senate in support of the rule of democracy against the filibuster, and a strong and progressive health reform bill will pass the Senate with considerably more than a majority.
Once again, it is time to make history




















And for another perspective being spread . . .
From the Los Angeles Times:
Continues: latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insure26-2009oct26
-OGD~
October 26, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and ... to those who haven't seen it . . .
. . . or for those here at the Cafe that may have forgot comments . . .
Here is my stance in my blog as of August 16, 2009 dealing with the issue of mandatory coverage if a strong public option is not provide in the bill to be signed by the President...
No Public Option ... Mandatory Coverage ... GO POUND SAND!
~OGD~
October 26, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roger Hickey, what is your position on the "opt-out" issue?
October 26, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The current, pre-emptive gouging on rates by the insurers is also helping to resurrect the Public Option.
October 26, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a public option because it's not open to everyone. If your employer offers you insurance, you're stuck with that. What does this do to free the millions of Americans from entrapment by the for-profit health insurance system?
October 26, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right you are! My company just switched everyone to United Healthcare and I have no way to opt out of THAT POS! Here is a big Fortune 500 company that switched to the absolute WORST coverage--you just know that money changed hands somewhere.
October 26, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Money absolutely changed hands. A consultant that gets kickbacks from UHC probably sold the plan to your employer. It's also possible that your employer got some kickbacks from the consultant.
October 26, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Hey Destor ... You've raised an important point . . .
If a person feels "stuck" with employer provided insurance they could always pray to get laid off or quit their job. And please take that as a tongue-in-cheek remark. Yet if you follow me here you'll see that losing ones jom may not be so tongue-in-cheek in the long run.
I have elected to expand upon the point you've raised in my Cafe blog post here.
Thanks for raising this issue. It cannot be over looked in the maze of competing bills bouncing around the hill in Washington.
~OGD~
October 27, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes lay-offs do rather complicate the matter. Especially if you get laid off in an "opt out" state...
October 27, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
well i don't really expect thhe problem you describe to last long in a reform environment...
issues such as cherry picking, lack of co-ops or a public option, and lack of portability make that lousy situation possible.
lousy employer based HCI is prevalent because each employer's plan is a defacto monopoly or duopoly for all their employees, which is prone to corruption, the choices aren't great to begin with because HCI providers tend to have regional monopolies and be anti-competitive to begin with, and that's the norm. and HCI isn't portable, so each time you change jobs you;re stuck with whatever they offer.
as soon as you get co-ops and a public option with bargaining power, it immediately begs the question why employees should be stuck with whatever their employer offers, why HCI isn;t portable, etc. why not take employer contributions and put them directly into salary, tax deductible HCI accounts to buy one's own, etc.
from that point reform comes close after.
October 26, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the insurance and drug industries (and Republicans) will be basing their strategy for stopping the public plan on undemocratic procedure called the filibuster.
Democrats and those who caucus with them are the problem. Sure, Republicans too, but you fail to see it is the threat of a bi-partisan filibuster that is at issue.
Not to mention the overall tone deafness of conservative democrats
October 26, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Roger Hickey. It looks likely that some version of a public option will be in the final bill that passes. At the moment, the focus is on an opt-out provision, but that would probably be a symbolic concession to opponents without much practical significance, because few if any states would be likely to opt out for long.
It is also important to recognize that the reform proposals encompass more insurance reforms than the public option, and the other reforms are at least as important if not more so. They prohibit insurers from refusing coverage, prohibit discriminatory rates based on health status, prohibit annual or lifetime caps on insurance or excessive copays, and mandate a basic set of essential benefits all plans must cover. At least some of the bills also specify a floor on medical loss ratios (the fraction of premiums that must be spent on medical services rather than overhead and profits). Typically, this would be about 85 percent, although many of the larger insurers already exceed this without a legal requirement in major markets.
It is the combination of reforms of insurance practices so as to guarantee good coverage to all subscribers with a public option to constrain costs that constitute the most effective insurance reform.
Finally, although insurance reform is important, the proposed legislation also begins to address the even more critical problem of reforming the healthcare industry itself, so as to minimize duplication and unnecessary services and facilities responsible for the unsustainably rising costs within American healthcare in both the private sector and the existing public option, Medicare. This aspect of reform has received less attention, but its ultimate impact may be greater even than insurance reforms.
October 26, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key sentence in Hickey's post (emphasis mine):
In other words, HCAN supports creating a public option that will be available only to those who are unemployed, or whose employer is too small to offer a health plan. Most people will be excluded.
Note: There are some means-tested exceptions that will allow the most underpaid Americans to refuse employer-based coverage and go to the exchange, where the public option is available. If you work for Walmart, for example, you may earn so little that you will qualify for one of the exceptions (unless you are already on Medicaid, as many Walmart employees are).
If you are employed by a company that offers a health insurance plan, and you do not earn little enough to qualify for the exchange, you will have three choices. Here they are:
The public plan that HCAN supports is a pitiful thing, available to only a few and operating only in the high-risk, high-cost end of the pool. It will provide absolutely no competition to private insurors in the employer-based insurance market, and, guess what, that's where the action is.
Apparently, this is the plan that HCAN supports. Give the peasants their public option, only make sure few are eligible to chose it. Fix it so that the public option has very little leverage on health care in general, and position it to siphon off the highest risk patients from the pool. Private insurors will quickly develop methods to abet the siphoning process and will soon adapt to the new paradigm. And the public option will be one more way - in addition to Medicaid and Medicare - to saddle taxpayers with the bulk of the costs while channeling the bulk of the premiums to private, for-profit companies.
I'm having a great deal of difficulty seeing this as patient-centered health care reform.
I'm having a great deal of difficulty accepting the claim that such a public option will have a noticable impact on the runaway costs of health care.
October 26, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Red Planet - for the perspective of one of the nation's leading healthcare experts, a strong proponent of robust reform, and an individual with intimate knowledge of the details, you might want to visit Maggie Mahar's blog on this subject. She, like many of us, is now optimistic about the prospect for an excellent reform package, including in all probability a public option of the kind now being considered:
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/10/the-public-option-its-not-about-politics-its-about-the-economics-of-reform.html
October 26, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, I think we agree that Mahar is one of the brightest and most engaged journalists covering the health care field. She advocates making Medicare an available option to everyone (Medicare E).
But that's not what Hickey advocates in this post. I wish he would.
October 26, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you misunderstood her use of the term Medicare E. In using that term, she is not advocating the scrapping of private insurance and the implementation of a single payer system, but rather the institution of a public option that would compete with private insurers. She is pleased with current proposals for the public option, and is satisfied with a possible opt-out provision for states. One of her points is that the proposed option would attract more subscribers than typically estimated, because it would be available to the uninsured, the self-employed, very small businesses, and individuals who are temporarily without insurance. Neither she nor others suggest that everyone eligible would choose that option, but rather that for the foresseable future, it should be available to large segments of the population, and ultimately for "everyone" (the E in Medicare E).
Mahar's and Hickey's perspectives are not very different, although she discusses a longer term view than he does.
Incidentally, if you're interested, I wrote a guest column for her on October 7 on cancer (in the October archives section).
October 26, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mahar often refers to "Medicare E (for everyone)," which I understood her to advocate as the preferred public option. I think that's what you're saying, too, unless I misread the last sentence in your first paragraph, but you're content to start with less and let it percolate.
Me, I'd rather not wait for the E in everyone. Let's keep up the pressure to do it now, rather than later.
October 26, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this where Reich is supposed to post that HCI reform is dead? at some point will he explain his several months of frantic posts?
will Reich claim the opt-out was an unforeseeable miracle that resuscitated reform? (as opposed to the outcome of negotiations among determined parties, in context of public momentum ultimately favoring reform and even the PO.)
will he claim that it was only his alarmism and prognostications that rallied the mob to make reform possible? the motivational panic approach...
October 26, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee ... Neil . . .
Instead of talking to yourself in this thread about Reich's position maybe you can get your questions answered by dropping Reich an email at bob@RobertReich.org
or leave your message @ (510) 642-0560 and he'll get back to you when he's got the time.
Oh and if you find the time, read this one from August or re-read it if you hadn't read it previously:
Beware Authoritative "Inside Washington" Sources Who Say The Public Option is Dead
And ... Unless you were previously posting under a different screen name I don't recall you ever commenting or airing your opinions in one of Reich's threads.
Hmmmm . . .
~OGD~
October 27, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink