Actually, I doubt the public option is indeed "off the table." The Politico has a report, "White House Backs Away From Public Health Care Option." But check Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard, who nails what's really happening at this stage in Democratic-socialist healthcare reform:
To my fellow bloggers on the right,More at the link.
This is NOT a victory ....
At best, we have won a skirmish - IF this is not smoke being blown by the Democrats smoke-blower-in-chief. (I am not convinced we have won even that much just yet.) Yes we have made a serious dent in their schemes, but we are not even close to being out of the woods on this yet.
We have a long way to go on this. Remember that Pelosi has already required that reconciliation be used - meaning that only 51 votes are needed in the Senate. Remember that there is a lot more to hate in these various bills being touted by the Democrats than just the public option.
If they get anything at all, they are looking at this as the camel’s nose under the tent. They will increment and “improve” anything they can get passed until it is socialized medicine. That is the ultimate goal. That is what Clinton pushed and that, very, very clearly, is the message of this article.
This is not a victory. We have to keep focused and keep fighting. We have to.
WORD SWAP ALERT!
ReplyDeleteOUT: "Public Option"
IN: "Cooperatives"
This is part of the "bipartisan compromise" ... but watch out!
The Heritage Foundation has a good breakdown of what cooperatives could entail ...
... In the Left corner:
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a supporter of a public plan, introduced his key principles on a co-op system that go in the wrong direction and would end up with a federally run public plan in all but name. He states that a co-op must be national in scope, it must secure significant federal start-up funding, and it must be run by federal officials appointed by the President.[1]
There are "co-op" models that are the wrong way to provide health care and should be unacceptable to lawmakers, such as Senator Schumer's thinly veiled public plan version. Simply calling some form of a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) a "cooperative," for instance, would be only another type of public plan in disguise.
A health insurance GSE, with its close relationship to the government, would tilt the market playing field and open the door to political manipulations--both of which would ultimately harm consumers. It would also create unjustifiable and unaffordable taxpayer exposure to financial risk.
One need look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to see how GSEs can distort the market and leave taxpayers with huge liabilities.
Any Congresscritter -- regardless of party -- who supports the above should expect a bath of boiling Tea in their future!
And in the Right corner ...
Health care cooperatives can work as private entities in a private market and give another choice to families, but they have to be done right. Here are several principles that must be a part of any co-op model:
* Cooperatives must be voluntary, open to individuals who choose to freely join together without coercion or restraint, and controlled by its members, not the government;
* Cooperatives must be viable on their own and must not receive anti-competitive government support in any form including assumption of risk, "start-up" capital, or continuous subsidies to the organization--which would turn them into government-preferred public plans;
* Health plans must be selected only by a co-op's members, not the government;
* Competitiveness must be based on the member strength of the cooperatives and not on any favored status, including government subsidies, access to government pricing, coverage or coding decisions, or regulatory intervention;
* Any necessary regulation to keep a level playing field among health plans must be reserved for the states;
* State reforms should open doors to competition, including the competition that cooperatives would bring; and
* All individuals--including those who receive public subsidies and individuals eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP--should be free to join cooperatives of their choice.
Caveat Emptor, my fellow Americans ...
... as long as the legislation provides ANY government-funded/government-managed alternative to private-sector insurance ... and/or ANY aspect of the bill does not lead to/leads away from individual empowerment in control of health care and its funding ...
... we risk a Pyrrhic victory.
DON'T. LET. UP. PATRIOTS!
Thanks Rich!
ReplyDeleteOur President is getting his first taste of going against the insurance industry, which is, make no mistake about it, a CARTEL, no longer the intended business model originally created to protect in an event of a loss, with their hands in all elections, all the time and process as much money as our government and in fact controls many public policies. Currently, what the insurance industry wants, the industry gets. They feel that no one is too big for them. With profits paramount, currently running health care as well as auto collision repair in there unsuccessfully dysfunctional way with no one to challenge them, as well as crushing free enterprise with their referral systems. When US States successfully created affordable government run workman’s comp insurance for business, the system currently works extremely well, with government achieving a much higher level of service at half the cost, but not surprisingly the insurance industry attempts to abolish the program every legislation cycle. They complain about being in competition with the government, but have no regard to health care patients well being, care facilities or the collision repair stores they our putting out of business daily by pushing all the patients or damaged autos through locations they own or have interest in, aggressively via referral systems. Insures are in competition with all businesses they pay claims to. From health care to auto repair. The insurance industry is currently a competitor to businesses and crushes whom they feel like, with no Federal Trade Commissions stopping them. The insurance industry controls the largest majority of claims service rendered. Free competition is long gone but seriously needs to be restored. I believe government should not just challenge the insurance industry, but to do its job and control them. I wish a leader to challenge the cartel, not give in to greed, and win. Mr. Obama, please don’t give up. The insurance industry can and should be restored back into its intended purpose. The insurance industry currently has more money than local governments and is right behind the federal government with regards to cash flow. They have hand placed policy makers in all levels of our government, federally and local. This presents serious threats to our government and should be investigated by the Federal Trades Commission, FBI and the CIA to ensure the stability of our government.
ReplyDeleteTHE POLITICIANS WHICH CLAIM THE PUBLIC DOESN’T SUPPORT OBAMAS PLAN ARE MOST LIKELY MOTIVATED BY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS, A USUAL DAY IN WASHINGTON.
Michael, stop drinking the class-envy Kool-Aid.
ReplyDeleteThe insurance industry is one of the most highly-regulated in the nation -- at the STATE level. In fact, that is one of the problems with it ... it is so regulated by each state, that you CAN'T purchase a better plan you might find, unless that insurer is authorized by YOUR state to sell it,
The problems are many, but one of the biggest is that health insurance, unlike auto insurance, in most cases covers a lot of ROUTINE events. This -- not an insurance-industry cabal -- is what stifles competition, because the user is insulated from direct cost feedback from the provider, negating the effect of cost competition for routine services and products.
You probably also think that corporations dominate our government and economy and stifle competition.
I suggest you ask yourself Casebolt's Question\. Do so honestly, and you may be surprised at the answer you'll get.