Right off the bat I am going to admit I could be wrong here. So please correct if I am.

It is my understanding the labor unions are opposed to Baucus's plan to tax cadillac health insurance plans to help pay for subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance, not the Wyden amendment.

On PBS, Jim Lehner last night - Judy Woodruff had extremely interesting, factual data on the 46 million being asserted as without healthcare.

36m are citizens - the other 10m are a combination of those here on legal visas, etc. and undocumented. Of course the greatest percentile are those considered at poverty level.

Complete with pie charts and additional data on other demographics too.

Encourage anyone with questions as to need and impact of HCR to visit the PBS website and review.

Wyden had an op-ed in the NYT just last week explaining his plan. Here's the beef:

I believe there is a way to work with the present employer-based system to guarantee that all Americans have choices, and I am proposing it in an amendment to the latest Senate health care bill. My amendment, called Free Choice, would let everyone choose his health insurance plan.

It would impose only one requirement on employers — that they offer their employees a choice of at least two insurance plans, one of them a low-cost, high-value plan. Employers could meet this requirement by offering their own choices. Or they could let their employees choose either the company plan or a voucher that could be used to buy a plan on the exchange. They could also simply insure all of their employees though the exchange, at a discounted rate.

All payments that employers would make, whether in the form of premiums or vouchers, would remain tax-deductible as a business expense. Reinsurance and risk adjustment mechanisms already in the bill would balance the costs of employers who end up with disproportionately sick pools of workers, and this would avoid any disruption to existing employer coverage. Any employers that did not offer either their own choices or insurance through the exchange would be required to pay a “fair share” fee to help support the system.

Sounds fair to me.

Does anyone know if there is a list somewhere of the plans provided to the employees of each State, including the cost?

On another thread I wound up thinking myself around to this proposal: if someone cannot get the kind of coverage for cost available to their State's own employees, they become eligible to become a member of the State employee plan for the same amount (although they would pay an amount equal to both the employee and employer contributions). And -- still thinking aloud here -- other employers could either negotiate something more favorable on their own or "provide" the same plan with vouchers to their employees for the contribution part (or the whole amount).

In my state, at least, that would mean you have a choice between 3-8 insurance companies/HMOs (depending on what part of the state you're in), good basic coverage (or fancier if you're willing to pay more), no refusal of coverage or dropped coverage or discriminatory premiums, and a total cost that is a lot better than I'm hearing quoted for individual or small employer plans.

The rates and coverage for the State employee plans are already being negotiated for a very large pool by people very experienced in negotiating, so allowing the uninsured/ underinsured to take advantage of those negotiations would be the State's "contribution" for the benefit its own citizens. And the Feds would provide subsidies for those that couldn't pay all or part of the premium, essentially eliminating Medicaid and quite possibly saving money over what is being spent now for Medicaid. The mechanism for membership is already set up, so the additional overhead cost would be minimal, just more people to handle the larger volume.

This isn't *quite* the same as the Wyden amendment but it's toward the same goal (I think) .... and might be considered less of a departure from the employer-based system that (for unknown reasons!) so many seem wedded to.

Either one would, I think, provide a good framework for a public option and/or single payer if use of the private companies didn't work ... OR let the private companies avoid a public option or single payer by making this private-based but equitable system work.

So --- what huge flaw am I overlooking? Because surely if it was that easy it would have been done long ago..... (One flaw could be that other States don't provide such good, choice-filled packages, which is why I asked about the list.)

Clarification needed?

TBCITH wrote: "If I'm reading this right, he doesn't require a public option..."

Here Wyden's words at BlueOregon from the Maddow Show transcript (my bold):

"Look, all over America people are carrying these signs, public option, public option or bust. They`re wonderful activists, but a lot of folks haven`t been told that the Congressional Budget Office says only about 12 million people in America would actually get to choose the public option. They are likely to be sicker. They`re likely to be folks who haven`t had good preventive health care services.

To really put the consumer in the driver`s seat, to give the consumer clout, to turn the tables on the insurance lobby, you`ve got to have a really big group. That`s what I`m pushing for, and free choice is very compatible with the public option. ...

Here is our chance to link real choice, real consumer choice with the public option and tell people, if you`re getting hammered today, if you`re stuck with a product you don`t like, we`re going to liberate you. We`re going to put you in charge. And, you bet, if the Congress passes somehow an anti-consumer, anti-choice, anti-holding insurance companies accountable bill, I think we`ll pay dearly for it.

That reads to me that his amendement dovetails with the need for the public option.

Related to the question of "portability" ...

TBCITH wrote: This sounds a great idea to me so far (at least this element does) because it expands portbability...

The following section from the Wyden pdf link doesn't appear to "expand" portability. If one were to leave their present employment and move to another state, one be required to purchase another plan from the exchange in that state they reside in.

Employer Coverage Options: Under this amendment, employers that offer group health coverage meeting the minimum requirements under the Act would have the following options:

1. The employer would offer all individuals eligible for coverage under their plan a voucher equal to the amount that the employer would pay for their coverage under the plan that they sponsor. These workers would have the choice to:

• Forfeit the voucher to take the health plan offered by employer; or

• Decline the employer plan and use the voucher to take coverage through the local exchange. If workers select a plan that costs less than the voucher amount, they can keep the unspent amount as cash.

2. The employer can offer two or more health plans where at least one has a premium that is less than or equal to the average of the premiums for the two lowest cost “gold level” health plans in the area exchange. The amount of the employer contribution must be the same regardless of the plan selected by the worker. If the employer contribution amount exceeds the premium for the lower cost health plan, the worker retains the difference as cash.

Your mileage most likely varies...

~OGD~