« No Mandate! | synchronicity's Blog | Please sign Congressman Anthony Weiner's Public Option Petition »
Cantwell 'Option' Pits State Vs. State
Apparently one of the amendments that passed in the Finance Committee, offered by Senator Cantwell.of WA, would create an 'option' that allows states to barter with insurance companies for better rates for their uninsured citizens. At least that is the understanding I got from listening to her describe it.
But in thinking about it... how nonsensical is that. State vs. State as to who gets the best rates based on what? Who is better at bartering? Who is a friend of the insurance companies? Who has the healthiest overall population of uninsured?
This, in my opinion, is really perpetuating what is already wrong with the health insurance system. It reminds me of how on a given day, the major telephone companies would give x customer x rate and y customer a completely different rate for the same service. At least that's what they used to do. I only use unlimited services for one price when it comes to phone companies now. I don't want this kind of BS involved in how much I have to pay for my health care.
So we all need to move to X state to get better health insurance? Senator Cantwell has tried to promote this as a type of 'public option'. I think this is a fail when it comes to a public option and we will need to pay attention to what congress does try to 'sell us' AS a public option.
Now the president says that creating jobs is not possible without health care reform.
So, if we don't want to just let them stick it to us, suggesting that we better 'take what we can get' on health care reform which is definitely what many in congress are trying to 'market us' to do, I again recommend that you fax, call, and email your key representatives and tell them that the Cantwell amendment to the Finance Committee health care reform bill does NOT go far enough and that you want a real, robust national public option that is available to all. Remind them that they have overestimated our willingness to accept a mandate without a real public option that will bring costs down and does not support further 'gaming of the system.
Remind them 'no public option, no mandate'.
But in thinking about it... how nonsensical is that. State vs. State as to who gets the best rates based on what? Who is better at bartering? Who is a friend of the insurance companies? Who has the healthiest overall population of uninsured?
This, in my opinion, is really perpetuating what is already wrong with the health insurance system. It reminds me of how on a given day, the major telephone companies would give x customer x rate and y customer a completely different rate for the same service. At least that's what they used to do. I only use unlimited services for one price when it comes to phone companies now. I don't want this kind of BS involved in how much I have to pay for my health care.
So we all need to move to X state to get better health insurance? Senator Cantwell has tried to promote this as a type of 'public option'. I think this is a fail when it comes to a public option and we will need to pay attention to what congress does try to 'sell us' AS a public option.
Now the president says that creating jobs is not possible without health care reform.
So, if we don't want to just let them stick it to us, suggesting that we better 'take what we can get' on health care reform which is definitely what many in congress are trying to 'market us' to do, I again recommend that you fax, call, and email your key representatives and tell them that the Cantwell amendment to the Finance Committee health care reform bill does NOT go far enough and that you want a real, robust national public option that is available to all. Remind them that they have overestimated our willingness to accept a mandate without a real public option that will bring costs down and does not support further 'gaming of the system.
Remind them 'no public option, no mandate'.
Advertisement
















The reason the health care insurance is such a mess is because of the State's having complete control over the process. Especially when they deal with insurance companies one-to-one instead of as a group. Best thing for the public is for Congress to keep the States completely out of the process.
October 4, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink