Health care's 'public option' would cover little of population

[valleywine]

Source: USAToday




Health care's 'public option' would cover little of population
Updated 4h 43m ago

By John Fritze, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A proposed government-run health insurance program, among the most divisive issues in the health care debate, would cover less than 1.5% of the population, new estimates show.

The latest version of the "public option," included in the 10-year, $848 billion health care bill headed toward an initial Senate vote Saturday, would cover up to 4 million people, according to the Congressional Budget Office report released late Wednesday night.

The issue remains among those that have prevented Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from securing the 60 votes he needs to pass the bill.

Paul Ginsburg, an economist with the Center for Studying Health System Change, questions the impact the public option proposals would have on families seeking health coverage.

"The type of public option we're talking about today … is all about ideology and symbolism," he said. "It's not going to have any impact on our health system.".......................

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-19-public-option_N.htm

---

I thought I read just a few months ago that the House bill would cover about 19 million. Things sure have changed.

[babylonsister]

1. Look up 94% of people covered under the Senate plan. I won't

do it for you.

I don't know who will be involved with the po. You tell me. Thanks!

[valleywine]

2. yes, I have seen that number also. That is why these numbers

stuck me.

[bjobotts]

21. The only good coming from this PO is it will open the door for gov, involvement in HC ins

[bjobotts]

22. So much oppostion is because it opens the door which can be expanded later by congress

[bjobotts]

23. Seems hardly worth what we are exchanging just to get the door cracked open huh

[IndianaGreen]

52. What you are saying is: Let Us Bend Over Now!

Lubrication will be forthcoming later.

[No Elephants]

37. Or closes it. Without a strong public option, we have Romneycare, which is a mess because it lacks

a public option.

If what comes out of Congress/the Oval Office is not much better than Romneycare, America will rebel.

[Oregone]

4. The "senate plan" number refers to everyone involved in the mandated system

This number is an estimate for a subsection of that who will be enrolled in the public insurance option. Two different numbers for two different concepts

[valleywine]

5. ah, thanks much for your post.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

24. You'll have to wait for his next zombie.

:P

[No Elephants]

36. "People covered under Senate Plan" includes those who have private insurance. "Those eligible for

the public option" is a different issue. And, even under your figures, 6% of a population of almost 400 million will have no coverage of any kind AND no eligibility for the public option.


Sorry, but that's just lame. Other, less wealthy countries have done better and done it decades ago.

[DailyGrind51]

3. This is why the objection of the insurance industry is so ridiculous.

The public option would not nearly be as threatening as they make it out to be.

[high density]

6. Isn't that what the voice of reason, Barack Obama, said a couple of months ago?

This is a small part of the overall reform.

[Iowa]

8. I believe he did say that... and even that was blatantly dishonest.

It's "small", that's for sure. But it's a small slice out of an overall heist... not a small part of anything that even remotely resembles "overall reform". This isn't reform. It's a transfer of resources from the people of this country to the insurance/drug companies; it's Robin Hood in reverse. And there's nothing reasonable about that.

Furthermore, a real president would have been touting the positive impact of a strong public option - not deliberately undermining the concept from the sidelines with weak comments that said (in effect) that people shouldn't worry because it's only a very weak public option.

So no... there was no "voice of reason" on display here. When the country needed a voice of reason, we got a Caspar Milquetoast who was wringing his hands over what his weak opposition was saying, while simultaneously giving away the store in a futile effort to fend off any criticism from the loony right. Because that's what he does... he deflates criticism by giving the other side what they want. He gets zero credit for this.

[optimator]

7. they need to call it something else then

its neither public nor an option.

[SkyDaddy7]

9. The Senate Bill is different than the House Bill...

Eventually they will have to be combined and then passed in both Houses. A lot of fighting to go!

[No Elephants]

38. Yes, and no guaranty that things will get better as the process advances, rather than worse..

Democrats started in the House in 2003 with HR 676--universal health care and single payer. Since then, proposals have gotten worse and worse.

[bhikkhu]

10. If its 4 million that really really need it...

that's enough to make it well worth it. Thinking about it a little more, thats enough to make it one of the best things that congress has done in years, assuming that it makes it through.

I'd be happy to see a bill establishing a public health care system as good as Canada, or Germany, or even Cuba has; but if the best we can get now is one that covers 4 million people, that would be an accomplishment to be proud of still.

[pattmarty]

28. The "best we can get" will still after all is said and done....................

...........be the shittiest healthcare system in the western industrialized world. If that's all we get, then why do it? I have FINALLY come to the conclusion that we will never get anything accomplished anymore because of the corporate infiltration of our WHOLE system. We have become a "modern fascist state", the merging of government and certain large corporations finally come to fruition. The healthcare "reform" by a FULLY Democratic held government is proof of that. I have seen NOTHING that will hold down the criminal increases in costs. They have even taken out (in the Senate version) the revocation of the insurance companies anti-trust exemption. By the time this "abortion" is done the Dems will declare victory over what essentially is a huge piece of steaming shit. See ya in Canada!!!!

[No Elephants]

44. Yes, let's be grateful (and proud) for the best we can get from a bought and paid for government.

A weak public option. Millions mandated to buy insurance, yet not eligible for a public option, strong or weak, aka a bailout for a rapacious industry that does not even need a bailout. The Stupak Amenddment, practically obliterating choice. The exemption from antitrust laws, originally granted when health insurance companies were not for profit do gooders, reaffirmed (or so it seems at this point).

Sure, it's good to cover a few more million people, but not if the cost of this bill sours America on the idea of any public option at all. Proud, though? No. Ashamed that this is the best my government can do--and when my Party controls it to boot.

[newspeak]

59. I say, if most of the congresscritters can't get beyond their greed

and their butt smooching the health industry (against us)--then just pass that which actually helps the people--like closing the donut hole (from *'s shitty "screw the people for the pharma" bill)--again, if this was a STRONG public option open to everyone, I'd be all for it.

And, I think some are delusional if they think this bill is going to get your foot in the door. The foot in the door is the insurance industry, because once they get those captive consumers and that government moolah, they ain't letting go. And, this bill will give them even more power to lobby against any future single payer or public option. That's my thoughts on the subject.

[glinda]

53. no...I need cheaper Insurance. I pay for my own and it is making us broke.

[SandWalker1984]

11. Reid also stripped out the anti-trust exemptions to make Ben Nelson happy.

This so called health care legislation just gets worse and worse. It should be titled the Insurance Industry Wealthcare Act as they are the only ones being protected in this bill.

I too read yesterday that the CBO said approximately ONE percent of the population would be eligible for the "public" option. Members of Congress, on behalf of the corporations, have killed any meaningful, affordable competition to the expensive, for profit and CEO bonus private health insurance.

IF that isn't bad enough, I came across this story today:

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html



It's time for everyone here to face the reality -- we are being sold, like slaves, to the health insurance corporations in exchange for payola from their lobbyists to Congress. We're not going to get affordable health CARE, we are going to get MANDATES to buy private insurance from the very companies that have made a farce of health care in the name of profits.

[Jefferson23]

32. I'm not doubting what you said about the anti-trust exemption,

but if you have a link you could post I would appreciate it. I was fearfull all along that this would not make it through and for me this is the straw that breaks the camels back. The bill has been so heavily compromised, but I thought if this provision is kept in that would be a great step forward in reform.

[placton]

12. When the president hears of this, he will

undoubtedly take quick action to make sure this is improved.

[audas]

14. LMAO

[Le Taz Hot]

40. You forgot this:

:sarcasm: Surely.

[Skink]

13. No reason not to pass it then.

let the next presidential canidates run on expanding the Public option.

[No Elephants]

42. Can you say "Stupak?"

Even separate and apart from the Stupak amendment, it is entirely possible that a bad bill will be worse for the cause of a strong public option than no bill at all. See Reply ##s 8 and 37

Quite a few Democratic writers have argued that a bad bill is worse than no bill at all, giving various reasons.

As far as the next candidate, given how Obama kept his promise about a strong public option, which he ran on, everyone will believe the next candidate, right? Riiiiight. And the next candidate will no doubt also have 60 Democratic Senators and an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House, only next time, there will be no Purple Snakes in either House. Heck, then we can really party like it's 1964.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Change that fell though a sidewalk grating.

[Jefferson23]

31. That is how I feel too on this bill, with the

anti-trust exemptions removed to please Nelson, what else is left worth anything in the bill? I am completely disgusted at this point.

[AllyCat]

17. $848B to cover almost no one. But we have to bailout the insurance companies,

right? Ugh! It's impossible for me to get excited about this and more than ever, I realize democracy is dead.

[Raine]

20. Same here

I don't think I've ever been so disillusioned before :-(

[No Elephants]

43. +1

[OHdem10]

18. This appears more about reforming Medicare (that costly juggernaut

they are continuously screaming about) than anything else.

[pnwmom]

19. It's all just guesswork. Some experts guess that few people would choose the

public option over all those wonderful private plans.

:sarcasm:

Other experts guess otherwise.

[fasttense]

25. Moderate solutions lead to moderate results. That's change you never notice.

"The public plan included in the House bill would cover 6 million people, the Congressional Budget Office predicted. The analysis predicted that the public plan would attract less healthy patients and that its average premiums would be "somewhat higher" than private plans.

The Senate bill would let states opt out of the public plan. States that are home to one-third of the population would be likely to do so, the CBO predicts."

Seems Congress and the president are all so moderate when it comes to helping the middle class. Funny, I didn't see anyone saying lets be moderate when it came to bailing out the uber wealthy banks/Wall Street/insurance corporations.

[boppers]

26. Murder 4 million people, or 19 million people,,,,

I'm kind of the disposition that less murder is better...

Of course, there are those who oppose legislation, and are thus fine with those millions dying.

[No Elephants]

46. Everyone who does not agree with you is fine with murder of 15 million more people than you're

willing to live with.

That very mnay be the biggest bullshit statement I've seen on any message board in over 6 years of almost daily political posting.

[boppers]

54. You should get out more.

There's far more absurd strawmen to be seen.

:evilgrin:

[BumRushDaShow]

27. THIS IS NOT THE FINAL BILL

Once again, as they have done all summer long, the M$M continues to jettison all credibility and in turn cause endless hand-wringing on DU. These same idiotic media, who focused on Baucus' bill with no public option (ignoring Kennedy's bill), as if it were the "final bill", were flummoxed when suddenly a bill that combined versions from 3 House committees, was being debated one Saturday in October in the House of Representatives. To these newsotainment jokers, the sudden appearance of a House bill, which was a non-Baucus-based, non-Senate-originated health insurance reform bill package soon to need reconciling with the other chamber, couldn't be real... Why? Because it was not in their interest, which was to demoralize. So they continued to refuse to connect what the House was doing and what the Senate was doing in parallel, with how Congress operates to create law. They could have simply turned on the famous School House Rock ditty where "Bill" sings "Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill", and explained to the public what all the steps were going to be in the legislative process.

But that is not their goal. Their goal is to contribute to the dumbing down of America.

Assuming that this iteration manages to pass in the Senate, it will then join the House version in a joint committee comprised of members of both chambers, where the 2 versions will be combined -OR- a whole new health insurance reform bill could be generated (hell, they could even substitute the text of H.R. 676, although the whole sad point of the current re-invent-the-wheel exercise was because 676 would be torpedoed by all the Blue Dogs). In any case, ONLY THEN would you have something close to what would be the "final bill" after it is amended and ready for a vote by both chambers. And yes, we'll go through the filibuster threat once again in the Senate. The Rules Committees from BOTH chambers will need to somehow try to "lock in" a final amended version and limit or forbid any further amendments to try to keep the ONE bill intact and streamline the process (as each side could amend differently setting the stage for more heartburn).

THIS would be the point where the arm-twisting and chairmanship threatening would take place. Do it too soon in the process and you lose your votes out of bitterness.

This article needs to be added to this list being compiled (substituting the "public option is dead" with "no one will be covered": http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/10/26/medias-credibility-not-public-option-is-what-is-dead

[IndianaGreen]

35. This bill is crappy enough as it is... an assault on the working class!

No amount of legislative massaging can save this turkey!

No bill is better than this POS!

[No Elephants]

47. We ALL know it's not the final bill. Is your point that this "reform" is going to get

better as it goes along?

[BumRushDaShow]

56. My point is that the gasbag media continues to do a disservice

when it comes to their nonsensical color commentary on what is happening procedure-wise.

[laughingliberal]

29. There is this bright spot:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68897-sen-wyden-wins-big-healthcare-concession

<snip> The Wyden-Reid-Baucus amendment does not go that far, but it would open up the health insurance exchanges to considerably more people than the bill as currently written. Under Reid's version of the Senate bill and under the House-passed bill, the vast majority of people who receive health benefits from their jobs would be ineligible to shop for insurance on the exchanges, which instead would primarily be accessed by individuals and workers at small businesses.

The agreement between Wyden, Reid and Baucus would change that."The agreed to amendment will make it possible for these individuals to convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a previous version of this provision will expand coverage to more than a million Americans," according to a statement from Wyden's office. <snip>

May not survive the conference but it does make the bill quite a bit better. The more people eligible to choose the public option, the stronger it becomes thus being seen as more of a threat to the private cartels and having the potential to keep premiums reasonable.

[No Elephants]

45. "The new health insurance exchanges" include private insurance companies. What says

specifically that those with vouchers will be eligible for the public option?

[laughingliberal]

51. My impression is that if the public option is part of the exchange...

anyone eligible to access the exchange has it as a choice. Not saying it will survive debate and conference but, for now, it is an increase in people who can choose it.

[whathappened]

30. health care

i hope this thing goes up in smoke , bushes part d was a big scam for insurance , and no body has even revisited this and made a good program out of it , so it looks like the health care bill would end up on a shelf and no improvements made for years , shut it down and restart it from fresh with single payers

[No Elephants]

48. Supposedly, this bill was to revisit Part D. The improvement was supposedly

that the cost of prescriptions was to be cut in half for a patient in "the doughnut hole." However, unless that provision was accompanied by some control on the rising cost of prescriptions in general, it was not as meaningful as it may have sounded sounded when AARP bragged about lobbying for it--and AARP did not include in its bragging any mention of cost controls. And I don't know if even the provision AARP bragged about is in the Senate bill.

(Sorry but which average voter is going to read over 2000 pages? Hell, the legislators don't even read those bills and that is SUPPOSEDLY their full time job.)

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[IndianaGreen]

34. A number equal to Cuba's entire population will remain without health coverage

If a poor country like Cuba, enduring decades of American aggression and embargoes, can provide free universal health care to all 12 million of its citizens, so can the US if we get the cojones to drive a stake through capitalism's greedy heart.

[Ed76638]

39. Of course

Thats what you get when you let Blue bitches write legislation.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Blue bitches didn't write the legislation.

The insurance companies did.

[No Elephants]

49. Not only did Purple Snakes not write this legislation, they did not even write the

remarks they made from the floor. The insurance industry wrote both.

See, the Repuglicans are correct: privatizing makes things more efficient, even things like being an United States legislator. Too bad the wallet of the consumer/taxpayer gets gored for both the private sector and the public sector.

[earcandle]

50. I heard 46 million, 9 million short of the number of people without it.

and found myself wondering why some people don't matter.  
is this really still America? 

[mddem9850]

55. Just appalling

[newspeak]

57. it seems to me that this is just a transfer of government money

to the health insurance industry. And since the industry is "for profit" then it's a whole lot of wasted money spent for high paid CEO's and accommodating Wall street instead of main street. Without a strong public option these greedheads can continually increase their rates--that most of us cannot afford or wish to buy only their only affordable high deductible crappy insurance. I don't believe there is a free market now days between the mega corps. We are captive consumers, nothing more.

[newspeak]

58. I heard that the insurance lobbyists

thought the penalty for not buying their for profit crappy insurance was too low. That's how much the corporations think about us. In my area, they're already going to raise our energy rates- we have massive foreclosures--13% unemployment. We keep getting squeezed, and believe me, the corps. don't care.