Tag Archives: public option

Remember the Public Option

22 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Deficit, health care, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Shortly after the New York Times broke the story yesterday that a so-called “grand bargain” (which if reports are accurate is neither grand nor much of a bargain) had been reached between President Obama and Speaker Boehner, White House spokesmen immediately sprang into action. Press Secretary Jay Carney said “there is no deal, we’re not close to a deal” and Dan Pfeiffer tweeted:

“Anyone reporting a $3 trillion deal without revenues is incorrect. POTUS believes we need a balanced approach that includes revenues.”

The Times account may or may not be true, we shall see in the next few days I suspect, but reading a post at AMERICAblog this morning reminded me of previous occasions when the White House kinda sorta fudged a bit on the truth, to be generous.

Like when the same Dan Pfeiffer said in October of 2009 that the rumors about President Obama abandoning the public option as part of health care reform were “absolutely false” and that:

“In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition.  That continues to be the President’s position.”  

It was later revealed that in July the president had made a secret deal with hospital lobbyists that a public option would not be included in the final legislation. In March of 2010 Paul Hogarth at Huffington Post wrote:

“In other words, while Obama was still saying in September that he supports the public option (which kept us hopeful) – the President knew all along that it would never make it in the final bill. He never said he’d fight to include the public option, and repeatedly said he was “open” to other ways to achieve the same goal. But little did we know, the fix was in.”

I also recall that there was a similar situation with the pharmaceutical industry. The president continued to voice support for drug importation after another secret deal had already been cut with lobbyists that it wouldn’t be in the final legislation either.

FWIW.

Advertisement

Reaction of a Sanctimonious Purist

09 Thursday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

In response to President Obama’s Tuesday hissy fit press conference:

Mr. President,

At the risk of going all sanctimonious and purist here, and not wanting to sound like an ungrateful pie-in-the-sky idealist who fails to recognize your greatness and the magnitude of your accomplishments, excuse me for being so bold as to assume I have even a smidgen of your knowledge and grasp of the issues and humbly offer a few points of “hope”fully constructive criticism.

The overall problem with your Grand Compromise is not so much the parts but the sum of the whole. You have surrendered to (oops, I mean compromised on) the Republican notion that tax cuts somehow equals economic stimulus. If that were true….well, no need to beat that long-dead supply-side horse.

You say that you were forced into this “deal” because Republicans pretty much had you backed into a corner and were holding middle-class tax cuts “hostage.” Maybe if you hadn’t waited until the last 2 weeks of this session of Congress to do something about the expiring Bush tax cuts (you were aware of the expiration date prior to this month, I assume) that wouldn’t have happened.

You said that your Republican “friends” (those “friends” who have stated their top priority as doing everything in their power to make you a one-termer) had to “swallow some things they didn’t like” in this deal. What would that be? The goal of most Republican policy in oh, say the last 30 years or so, has been two-fold—look out for the rich and….look out for the rich. Seems to me with the permanent temporary extension of the Bush tax rates on income, capital gains, dividends, and the unexpected gift of lower estate taxes thrown into the pot, they just about achieved their nirvana.

The overall numbers might look like you got the best of your “friends,” but on closer examination, not so much. The tax cut measures you wanted total out to $216 billion as opposed to the $125 billion in cuts the Republicans got. But that $125 billion goes to 1% of the people and the $216 billion gets divided among the other 99%. We get a few hundred, they get a few hundred thousand, if not more.

Obviously, you’re still not over the public option debate, and how your sellout of compromise on that aspect of health care reform was somehow misinterpreted by the “purists” as a sign of weakness and not an accurate measure of your “core principles.” Maybe if you hadn’t continued to voice your support for it months after cutting a secret deal with hospitals and insurance companies to not include it in the final legislation, we might have had a better idea of what those “principles” were and taken that into account in the search for “purity.”

Speaking of that, sir. You seem to not miss an opportunity and take great pleasure in browbeating and chastising members of your own party and those who supported you in 2008. I guess it gives you a warm, fuzzy, bi-partisany feeling all over. Good luck with that strategy paying off in 2012.

Insurance Industry’s Pre-Emptive Strike on Health Care “Reform”

22 Wednesday Sep 2010

Posted by in health care, Obama administration, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Sure is a good thing we avoided the public option “government takeover” of the health care system and mandated coverage by private companies. Nobody could have ever seen this coming:

“Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.

Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.

“We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds,” Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. “[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.”

[…]

But officials of the Obama administration said the move contradicted a letter from the leader of one of the insurance industry’s most important trade groups after the law’s adoption in March. Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, expressed support for the law’s provisions concerning children with preexisting conditions and promised to “fully comply” with them.

“We expect [insurance companies] to honor that commitment. Insurers shouldn’t break their promise and turn their backs on some of our most vulnerable Americans,” said Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Naive much?

“Villain Rotation” in the Senate

24 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, health care, Obama, Politics, special interests

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I hesitate to even comment on the health care reform charade any more because that’s exactly what it is and has been from the get-go, a charade. But Glenn Greenwald had a piece in Salon yesterday which nailed the situation perfectly. The bottom line is this–there will be no real reform for one reason–those in power don’t want it. Sure they, meaning the president and Democrats in the Senate, want to give the appearance of being for substantial reform, but the fact is they all benefit too much from the status quo. They aren’t about to kill the corporate goose that lays the golden campaign contribution eggs, and especially now that the Supreme Court has allowed corporations, like the insurance industry, to spend unlimited amounts on advertising for and against candidates.

Greenwald cites Sen. Jay Rockefeller as the latest example of what he calls “Villain Rotation.”

“They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.”

From Politics Daily on October 4, 2009:

“Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He’s a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor — and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

“I will not relent on that. That’s the only way to go,” Rockefeller told me in an interview. “There’s got to be a safe harbor.”

Jay Rockefeller Monday:

“Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

“I don’t think the timing of it is very good,” the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. “I’m probably not going to vote for that.”

Greenwald:

“In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can’t do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor it doesn’t have 60) But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.”  What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing…[B]ack in August the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it).  Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary–finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include?  The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted:  Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?.”

The problem was, and is, that the president and the Democrats in Congress are getting exactly what they wanted to start with. The backroom deal with PhRMA is intact. The individual mandate remains, forcing people to buy from private insurance companies. The president’s plan also raises the subsidies, which shovels taxpayers dollars to the same private companies, which in turn keeps the corporate contributions flowing and away from the Republicans.

If this plan passes, I would suggest buying stock in Aetna, WellPoint, United Health Care, et al. Maybe the dividends will help cover the cost of the premiums.

A Public Option Will Destroy Competition? What Competition?

30 Tuesday Jun 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The next time you hear one of our elected officials in Washington rail against President Obama’s proposed public option on health insurance by saying it will “destroy the marketplace” (Richard Shelby) or that there’s “plenty of competition in the private insurance market” (Joe Lieberman) remember this report from Heath Care for America Now (HCAN).

The only thing in danger of being destroyed is the monopoly the large insurance companies presently hold, and which they are willing to make any amount of campaign contributions (aka bribes) to continue.

Consider the following:

“In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven’t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated.”

“Highly concentrated,” according to the U.S. Justice Department means that one company holds more than a 42 % share of the market, a level reached in 31 states.

“In Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas, and Iowa, the two largest health insurers control at least 80% of the statewide market.”

In Senator Shelby’s own state of Alabama, Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 83% of the statewide market, the highest rate in the nation for a single company. Is this what he is intent on preserving? Apparently so.

Right here in Texas, two companies, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, control 59% of the market. Our own Senator John Cornyn was one of 9 GOP senators who sent a letter to President Obama which said “a federal government takeover of our healthcare system would take decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and place them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.” I suppose placing those decisions in the hands of an insurance company “bureaucracy” is acceptable.

But having a monopoly can be a very profitable enterprise:

“Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. In 2007 alone, the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million—an average of $11.9 million each.

That is 468 times more than the $25,434 an average American worker made that year. Moreover, the health insurance industry invests more in buying back its own stock and rewarding its shareholders than in improving system operations, reducing premiums, or in developing ways to pay doctors and hospitals fairly.”

For those of us who pay premiums however, it’s not such a sweetheart deal. They have risen more than 87%, on average, over the past 6 years. From 1999-2007, while the average U. S. wage growth was 29%, the average premium growth was 120%.

This is the status quo that Shelby, Lieberman, Cornyn, the big insurance companies, and their lobbyists want to maintain. It’s up to us to let them know that another 15 years of business as usual is unacceptable.