In a huge step toward making public option health care a reality, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday that the bill he intends to send to the Senate floor next month would include a public option.
Still a long way to go, health care reform has, however, made great strides. Considered DOA, particularly a public option, as recently as August, this is a significant move. Recent polls show consistent support, currently 71%, by Americans for a public option to be included in health care reform.
"We were laughed at in August. Who would have thought that the Senate bill would have a public option?" said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (AP)
In the opt-out plan states would be allowed “opt-out” or not use a national government insurance plan. So what happens if a GOP governor, simply because he doesn’t like President Obama, refuses to let people in his state have the government option?
Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has suggested there be a waiting period, perhaps a year, before a state can opt-out of the plan.
Weiner stated on his website countdowntohealthcare.com, “Under the proposal of Senator Reid, individual states will be able to decide. But which comes first? The public option or the option to deny it to the public?”
“Here is the rub,” Weiner continued. “If a public option is created and permitted to operate in all 50 states, I am convinced it will be a success and that it will attract customers who want competition, choice and lower costs. There is no way that any governor- no matter how red the state – will shut down a program that is serving tens of thousands of his or her constituents.”
In other words, let the GOP governors cut off their noses to spite President Obama by denying their constituents affordable government health care, and see how long they last in office.
Last week Weiner called on 55 Republican adversaries of the public option to give up their government-funded health insurance.
“Even in a town know for hypocrisy, this list of 55 members of Congress deserve some sort of prize,” Weiner wrote on his official website. “They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”
The problem I see with the trigger plan is that the insurance companies will play that system. If they are given 2-3 years to get their costs down, before the trigger of a public option is put in place they will wait until they are threatened and then promise to change their ways, only doing the minimum necessary. And what about affordable insurance in the meantime, while the insurance companies play the system? We can’t afford to wait for a trigger.
Republicans don’t like any of the options (big surprise) so they offered their own “solutions.” (Think: “This plan?” blue folder) House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) held a press conference today (Wed) to explain why progressive health reform would hurt seniors and to highlight the GOP’s “better solutions.” In an e-mail yesterday, Boehner instructed readers to go to the GOP healthcare website “and you can see all our proposals.” (Think Progress)
Think Progress checked out the website and found that the Republican Plan for “common-sense health care reforms,” did not address seniors in the plans presented. In fact, according to Think Progress, “there are no occurrences of the words ‘senior,’ ‘elderly,’ or ‘older Americans,’ at all.
At the press conference Think Progress asked Pence to address the notable omission. Seemingly unaware of the failure, he instructed them to “stay tuned.”
As Think Progress said, “After a months-long campaign to scare seniors about health care reform, it appears the Republicans have simply forgotten about them.”
So much for a "New Republican Plan." Sounds like the same old recycled plan of.....nothing.
Note: Here is the link to watch Pence announce the "New Republican Plan." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSXmxXi0mI
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics,” published every week, will reflect on how the life of a 60 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. Her column is part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a freelance writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children and is the proud grandmother of three.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.personalpolitcs.gather.com, The Obama Watch at theobamawatch.gather.comor her home page here, www.ccabot.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 81
If we could really opt out, there are at least 12 states ready to do so.
Speculation on how the "Opt Out" will be executed is still being discussed--my emotions for this argument is wait and see! Massachusetts is an "Opt In" State so, we are looking at the details as they unfold.
Most of the Teabaggers are retired or close to retirement. I'm sure they will all die off soon and the younger generation that really cares about this country and had a large hand in electing President Obama and other Democratic representatives will lead the way.
And, Robert, it's sad that the only thing you can contribute to a conversation is taunting and calling names. You're totally wrong. But we don't want our taxes to go to socialist programs that we don't want, you bet.
And just because they call themselves "patriots", that doesn't mean that they are. Teabaggers are un-American and anti-American; anyone who refuses to support their government fits into that category.
"...we don't want our taxes to go to socialist programs that we don't want, you bet." I don't want my taxes going to pay the salaries or pensions of politicians who lie to me and cheat on their spouses, but they do. Learn to live with the fact that not everyone thinks as you do.
U can influence who gets richer or poorer, and who gets your $$ but thats all u can do.
Marilyn, seeks attention and has no clue of what she is saying or what it means.
I find it hard to believe 70% of Americans agree on anything this controversial. I doubt you can get 70% of Americans to agree on much short of if God exists.
If Americans (and the world) has learned anything from this recent financial set of catastrophes, transparency within such economically gigantic (and highly undemocratic) landscapes is the only path to a reasonable solution.
But that is a profoundly scary proposition for the multinationals involved in healthcare.
Republican health plan (targeted towards the poor, of course): "die quickly".
My article with link to NYT article:
Here
And are they also giving up their free clinic in the Capital? With 24-hr/day services? Gee, I'd like that in my office building.
I really wish Congress can see just how this insurance monopoly is killing small businesses. Soon, we will not be able to afford even the most minimal of policies.
That's the point. All these tea-baggers screaming about socialism and Obama wanting to kill capitalism. That's total crap - if they were really a small business owner, like us, they would be screaming about these insurance monopolies trying to drive them out of business.
Why are you fighting so hard to keep things that way, Marilyn?
Nope...just protect Americans like you and me from the modern day Robber Barons!
All the indicators seem to show that this bill will benefit the insurance companies and not actually help people.
Obama's audacity of hope has been turned into a smoke screen by the sycophantic oligarchs; aka: the wealthy who actually run our country.
America does not stand for the average citizen anymore. America barely tolerates them.
We have a long way to go to get to a sane method of financing health care. Until insurance and pharmaceutical companies don't own politicians I think it's not going to happen.
So is the idea that tax payer dollars should be given to the poor so they can buy a policy from a private company.
Why should I, as an individual or a tax payer, be forced to subsidize the Lear jets that health insurance companies maintain for their executives?
Why should I have to pay for their lobbyists?
"
Absolutely! How is this not government subsidizing the health insurance companies, by forcing people to purchase their products?
It doesn't bother me in the least that M. M.'s views differ from mine, but, she basically only says things that can be reduced to fit on a bumper sticker which, of course, fits her teabagger mentality.
Republicans care about everyone. Democrats care about themselves first, then the people they can grab up into more entitlement programs. There, now, Ron. Does that help you understand?
Actually, it has been that way for much of the U.S. history, but it has gotten worse since the supreme court made corporations person. Since then the court has added even more rights and privileges, and it will get worse until the government is forced to rescind that false status.
I sincerely hope they will take the time to craft a sensible, responsible plan that will provide high quality care for all, rather than playing party politics and trading favors. If health care experts have been unable to formulate a workable plan, how can our legislators, few of whom have medical knowledge, hope to do so?
All Americans are invited to tea parties. Jeannie, do you like being burdened with heavy taxes to support deadbeats and illegal aliens? Do you want your taxes to be used for purposes that you consider immoral? What the teabaggers are doing is for every American.
I'm sure that you recall the original Boston Tea Party's slogan: "No taxation without representation". Although we now elect representatives, those reps are not representing our best interests by voting in favor of heavy taxes that are opposed by their constituents. Back room deals and vote trading are prevalent and needs to be stopped.
Longer, Cheri and still we won't have what our European allies have.
"The campaign for some form of universal government-funded health care has stretched for nearly a century in the US On several occasions, advocates believed they were on the verge of success; yet each time they faced defeat. The evolution of these efforts and the reasons for their failure make for an intriguing lesson in American history, ideology, and character.
Other developed countries have had some form of social insurance (that later evolved into national insurance) for nearly as long as the US has been trying to get it. Some European countries started with compulsory sickness insurance, one of the first systems, for workers beginning in Germany in 1883; other countries including Austria, Hungary, Norway, Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands followed all the way through 1912. Other European countries, including Sweden in 1891, Denmark in 1892, France in 1910, and Switzerland in 1912, subsidized the mutual benefit societies that workers formed among themselves. So for a very long time, other countries have had some form of universal health care or at least the beginnings of it. The primary reason for the emergence of these programs in Europe was income stabilization and protection against the wage loss of sickness rather than payment for medical expenses, which came later. Programs were not universal to start with and were originally conceived as a means of maintaining incomes and buying political allegiance of the workers.
In a seeming paradox, the British and German systems were developed by the more conservative governments in power, "
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php
Now, the president has told the legislators to solve all the problems and wrap up this painstaking work within the next two months. How do you feel about that? Politicians, who have little or no knowledge of health care delivery, are saying that they can accomplish want decades of work by experts could not.
All of your panel's work will be brushed aside as having no merit. You know the politicians' plan will not work and will bankrupt the country. What will you do?
It seems to be very wise of Obama to try and rush a reform bill through because if it does not remain in the news 24/7 for months no bill will be passed. Just as has happened with every other attempt at reform since Truman it will die in a committee unless it is rushed.
As to taxation to pay any of the costs I also have some concerns. I fully believe that the US Tax Code is complicated enough without tacking on another tax on either insurance companies or individuals based on the amount insurance which their employers pay for them. There is a much simpler, fairer, way to increase tax revenues:
Warren Buffet, one of the world's wealthiest people, and also a Democrat, summarized it best when he recently stated: "There is something wrong with a tax system in which I pay a 17% tax rate and my secretary pays 30%." Solution: Repeal the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends which were extended primarily to the top 1% of the population. Also, another change could be made to increase tax revenue:
It's interesting that I have heard the same thing from both the right and the left on corporate income taxes. The person on the left is talk show host Thom Hartman. The person on the right is William F Buckley Jr. Buckley was a genuine intelligent conservative very much unlike this site's resident sloganeering tea bagger who doesn't have enough money to buy a clue. In any case, just before Buckley's death about a year ago both he and Hartman came up with the same idea: During the Eisenhower Era corporations paid roughly 30% of the total US tax burden, now they pay only about 10%. While the top US tax rate for corporations is quite high at 35% many companies have moved their headquaters offshore to avoid taxes. (Think Cheney's Halliburton and Abu Dubhai.) The solution to this is not to further increase the tax rate. Instead, the offshore loopholes should be closed. The chances of this actually happening are probably close to zero until, and unless, we are able to eliminate corporate campaign contributions and move to public financing of campaigns.
The Public Option should be reserved to those the insurances refuse and, IMO, should work as some type of "re-insurance": if one cannot afford health insurance (not making the vital minimum or unable to subscribe an insurance due to health conditions) the the public option should be activated.
Being a woman of your generation I am now more than ever concerned about how government is addressing the group they labeled as the 'baby boomers'.
I think including the public option was a political version of throwing a Hail Mary. It automatically delivers most Blue Dogs in both Houses to the opposition and has even gotten one liberal threatening to filibuster. It also removes the thin film of bi-partisanship given by Sen Snowe.
So this will be decided solely by the Dem party with the shadow of 20100 looming over them, the House vote will be much narrower even without the vaunted public option. What a misnomer, government both being player and referee-that sure twists the word competition around a bit doesn't it?