New polls are encouraging: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/6656301.html However, chron.com commenters are not encouraging to my belief that Americans are intelligent. Some gems: Yeah dude, your Republican website is less biased than the AP. Idiot. THE POLL IS INACCURATE CUZ IT DOESN'T SUPPORT ME!!!!11 It's actually very difficult to find an intelligent person among these people. It's very sad.
Very interesting article and info rhad. I like their idea quite a bit. I'm surprised at the lack of conversation but I figure it has more to do with the fact that it makes sense. You can't freak out one way or the other in regards to the information. I've had to take a break from here lately because it isn't healthy
Looks like an opt-out public option is taking hold in the Senate. Still early, but I actually think this is a perfect solution for all involved. Regardless of the specifics, though, it's becoming pretty clear a public option is going to be in the final bill - and likely, a fairly strong one in some form or another. Story about the option: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...emocrats-warm-to-public-option-compromise.php Analysis: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html Some of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action. I'm not going to call these people out by name because I consider some of them friends and they're doing good, important, productive work. But this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates. Here's why: 1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain). 2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in". 3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka. 4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition. 5) The ability to negotiate at Medicare or Medicare-plus-X-percent rates really is what makes the public option so powerful. It's not just having "another option". Although creating an additional competitor would certainly be valuable, as health insurance is a virtual monopoly or duopoly commodity in some regions, you could achieve that goal through a variety of other means such as co-ops or exchanges, some of which are already in the health care bill. Rather, it's the ability of the government to potentially provide more efficient (i.e. cheaper) delivery of health insurance than private industry because of its advantages of scale that distinguishes the public option from something like co-ops. As a general rule, then, compromises that allow the government to take advantage of its size and negotiate at Medicare-type rates should be preferred strongly to those that would neuter it. 6) If the policy wonks are wrong about the public option reducing health care costs -- I don't think they will be, but they could be -- this creates a relatively pain-free way to remove it. ... Now, if you could have a Jay Rockefeller-style, Medicare-for-Anyone type public option with no strings attached, would that be a superior alternative? Of course. But that amendment was rejected 8-15 by the Finance Committee and has very little chance of becoming law. Some sort of compromise is almost certainly going to be necessary. This is almost certainly the best compromise that has been floated so far. I don't really see what the problem is.
The devil is in the details, but I’m willing to listen Having an option for states would be interesting. Once a state opts out, will it never have a chance to opt in? Once a state sees that the public option actually works and saves money for other states that have it, I could see elections swinging to the candidates that support the public option and eventually all states would opt in. I could see letting the voters of a state decide on the public option. Also, would it be a national OP or will states design their own version? Can you imagine insurance companies having to negotiate with 50 different state legislatures for coverage and rates? What a nightmare. What if you lived in a state with the public option but wanted to move to a state that opts out? Interesting
This is the first public option compromise that didn't sound like total bs to me. I'm scared to say that I'm starting to get optimistic about the final shape of the healthcare reform bill.
From my understanding: * States WOULD have the option to opt back in. I don't think it makes sense any other way. * Agree on the political ramifications - it puts a lot of pressure on the states that don't go with the public option to come up with other ways to cut costs or face an angry electorate. If those states can cut costs and provide coverage without a public option, more power to them. * I think this started as an opt-in idea, which would have been each state creating their own. The new opt-out idea is a centralized national system, which makes far more sense. * Moving from state to state does seem like an issue, though I guess no more of an issue than there is now. It does seem like it would push more states to offer the public option, though, or risk losing population/competitiveness over time.
At first when I saw this I wondered whether republicans wouldn't see right through it. Nearly all states will be involved, so it's basically just the public option they were so against. Then I realized that this compromise isn't for Republicans (save one or two), it's for conservative democrats who were afraid to vote for a public option based on the potential political fallout back home. This way they can vote for the compromise and leave it up to the people and/or government of the state whether to participate or not, thereby passing the buck. I think it's much more likely that the more conservative democrats would find that palatable while still getting a somewhat robust public option in there to make progressives happy. Personally, anything that makes it possible to undo the reforms if opponents fears are realized is a good thing, so I'm on board as well.
I'm glad somebody posted this new compromise, I have to agree this is a very good one. It has numerous advantages. - The opt-out allows democrats to forge a truly robust public option without strings, triggers, medicare+10%, etc. When the blue dogs complain, say: "hey, your state can just opt out of it." - It allows for a true competition of public vs. private. The republicans can't hide behind the excuse of what 'might' happen, or how awful it will be (fear mongering.) If it's awful, then the states will opt out. The republicans claim that the american people have rejected the public option, or that they will. Fine- this compromise allows the american people to reject the public option after they've seen what it does for them and/or their neighbors. The rumored compromise (details aren't worked out of course) would be a national plan by default, in which all states are enrolled in by default. Individual states could opt out (by the governor, by legislature, by referendum, who knows.) Competition between states is what makes this proposal so interesting. Imagine all those pro-business republicans who brag about TX being a right to work state, losing their entrepreneurs to more liberal states because they won't have to pay for healthcare there.
Perhaps I speak too soon on this. Aren't there requirements for businesses of a certain size to pay for employee healthcare on the current proposal? But the point about state-to-state public vs private competition stands. Residents moving, or refusing to move, or even faking residence in another state in order to save money on healthcare could happen.
I think the significant thing is that this option is the most likely scenario for the Senate. The House, no doubt, will have a full-scale public option. But then the negotiated solution between the two has a public option no matter what - whether it will be full-scale or opt-out (I suspect the latter because you can lose more crazy house members than you can Senators). I think the two concerns were that the Senate bill would either not have one or have a watered down one that didn't control costs. This compromise solves that part - if both versions have a strong public option, then the final version would too.
anybody want to talk about the new AHIP Report? (snicker) New York Democrat Anthony Weiner does.... "If you have the health care industry complaining that we’re going to raise costs because of these changes, it is them putting us on notice that we haven’t put enough cost containment in the bill. You know, the health care industry themselves is putting out a whole report saying that. That should be a tell to the Baucus team that you know what, maybe it’s time for them to go back and revisit the public option. In a strange way, and look, obviously they didn’t mean this, the health insurance lobby today fired the most important salvo in weeks for the public option, because they have said, as clear as day, left to their own devices, according to their own number crunchers, they’re going to raise rates 111%. " http://thinkprogress.org/
Sen. Snowe to vote for health care overhaul http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33290417/ns/politics-health_care_reform/ A Republican senator says she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, breaking with her party on President Barack Obama's top legislative item. Sen. Olympia Snowe kept virtually all of Washington guessing how she would vote until she announced it late in the Senate Finance Committee debate Tuesday. Until then, she told reporters, she had not even let Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, in on her secret. She told her colleagues: "When history calls, history calls" even though she had some criticism of the bill.
That snippet is misleading. She is voting for the bill to leave committee. She explicitly stated that this doesn't mean she'll vote for the final version of the bill.[rquoter]And Ms. Snowe cautioned she still has concerns about the legislation. She said Tuesday's vote doesn't mean she will vote "yes" on the final bill that comes before the Senate.[/rquoter]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125543637111982309.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
I guess now my question is whether Snowe would vote for a bill with a public option that has an opt out for states.
No previous health care reform attempt has cleared all the House and Senate Committees. Now, the negotiations are commencing, but it looks like we will have substantive health care reform. Whether it's as good as it can be is another question, but it will almost certainly be better than what we have now. Pretty remarkable.
