Conservative media follow GOP talking point, declare co-ops identical to public plan
Conservative media figures including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ralph Reed, and Mark Steyn have advanced the GOP talking point that health care cooperatives are, in Hannity's words, "basically the same thing" as the public option "with a new packaging." But mischaracterizing cooperatives as identical to the public option ignores numerous economists who have argued that cooperatives will be less effective than a public option.
Media conservatives advance latest conspiracy: Co-op is public option in disguise
Hannity: "[T]he cooperative plan is basically the same thing with a new packaging." Discussing reports that the Obama administration might support health care cooperatives as an alternative to the public option, Hannity claimed, "I think the cooperative plan is basically the same thing with a new packaging." He then asserted that "this is still going to be government-run health care." [Fox News' Hannity, 8/17/09]
Steyn: Co-op no different than public option. While interviewing columnist Mark Steyn, Hannity asked, "The co-ops. But is a co-op any different than the so-called public option?" Steyn responded, "No, I don't think so, because in the end if you have a government perspective on health care, it leads to rationing." [Hannity, 8/17/09]
Reed: "government-run plan now masquerading as a co-op": Appearing on Hannity, former Christian Coalition of America director and Republican strategist Ralph Reed asserted that "the co-op they're talking about is going to be heavily subsidized by the federal government." He then claimed, "Remember that the public option, the government-run plan now masquerading as a co-op, is going to set rates below market rates. It will be subsidized with your and my tax dollars." [Hannity, 8/17/09]
Limbaugh: "If you're going to try to fool us by thinking you're dumping the public option, well then come up with some name that doesn't reek of liberalism." Discussing co-ops, Limbaugh claimed, "Look, I know liberal lingo when I hear it. A co-op? Yeah, let's go to the farmers market. Let's go to the community garden! What, do they think we're idiots?" He continued:
They said they want to cover the uninsured. We can do that without doing this. They said they want competition, they said. OK, great, we can do that, too. But they want single payer, and they're not going to give up and there's no competition in single payer.
They tried the back door of the phony public option, and it didn't work because people figured out what the public option is. People are not that stupid, especially when you tell 'em, "OK, you got private insurance agencies here in the private sector, and then you've got the public option," and you've got businesses who are already panicked at their health care costs who would love to offload their health care costs to the government, the public option. And the public option run by the government, it does not have to turn a profit so if you do -- if you have to make a profit in the private sector -- there's no way you can compete and stay in business with an outfit that doesn't have to make a profit. Now, co-ops. Co-ops. As long as they're going to create some government entity and as long as they're going to make private insurance unsustainable with limits and regulations and taxation, their objective is the same. Co-ops! Man, you people at the administration, if you're going to try to fool us by thinking you're dumping the public option, well then come up with some name that doesn't reek of liberalism. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/17/09]
Claim echoes GOP press release
GOP: " 'Public option' by any other name is still government-run health care." In an August 17 press release, the Republican National Committee asserted:
Co-Ops Would Be Funded By Federal Government. "Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat, proposed creating nonprofit, member-operated health cooperatives to compete with insurers ... The government would offer start-up money -- Conrad said $6 billion would be needed -- in loans and grants to help doctors, hospitals, businesses and other groups form nonprofit cooperative networks to obtain and provide healthcare." ("Q&A -- Co-Ops In Focus In U.S. Health Care Debate," Reuters, 7/30/09)
Co-Ops Would Be Regulated By Federal Government. "Advisory board makes recommendations to HHS Secretary who makes final decisions about approvals of business plans ... Business plans must meet governance standards, and eligible applicants must meet the standard for non-profit, participating mutual insurance." ("Senate Finance Committee Draft Proposal," 6/19/09)
Co-Ops Would Force Individuals Who Want To Join To Go Through State Governments. "Co-op membership would be offered through state insurance exchanges where small businesses and individuals without employer-sponsored plans would shop for health coverage." ("Q&A -- Co-Ops In Focus In U.S. Health Care Debate," Reuters, 7/30/09)
Federal Government Would Use Co-Ops To Monopolize Health Insurance. "[T]hese co-ops sound a lot like a health-care Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Congress created because there was supposedly no secondary mortgage market. The duo proceeded to use their government subsidy to dominate the market and drive out private competitors." (Editorial, "Fannie Med,"The Wall Street Journal, 7/30/09) [RNC press release, 8/17/09]
Progressive economists argue public option far more effective
Reich: Co-op "bamboozle" "won't have any real bargaining leverage to get lower prices." In a June 11 post to The American Prospect's blog, Tapped, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich described the co-op proposal as a "bamboozle" and said "[n]onprofit health-care cooperatives won't have any real bargaining leverage to get lower prices because they'll be too small and too numerous. Pharma and Insurance know they can roll them. That's why the Conrad compromise is getting a good reception from across the aisle." He continued:
The truth is that there's only one "public option" that will truly bring down costs and premiums -- one that's national in scale and combines its bargaining power with Medicare, and is allowed to negotiate lower drug prices and lower doctor and hospital fees. And that's precisely what Pharma and Insurance detest, for exactly the same reason.
Whatever it's called -- public option or chopped liver -- it has to be able to squeeze Pharma, Insurance, and the rest of the medical-industrial complex. And the more likely it is to squeeze them, the more they'll fight it. And the greater the opposition from Republicans, and from Dems who either believe any bill has to have some Republican support or who have sold themselves out to the medical biggies.
As long as single-payer is off the table, then we need a real public option. Don't be fooled by labels. Demand the real thing. [Tapped blog post, 6/11/09]
Hacker: Co-ops "not going to have the ability to be a cost-control backstop, much less a benchmark for private plans." In a June 14 post to The New Republic's blog, The Treatment, University of California-Berkeley professor Jacob Hacker argued that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) "has offered no reason to think that the cooperatives he envisions could do any of the crucial things that a competing public plan must do." Hacker continued:
An easy way to think of the public plan's functions is the three "B"s: We need a national public plan that is available on similar terms in all parts of the nation as a backup. This plan has to have the ability to improve the quality and efficiency of care to act as a benchmark for private insurance. And it has to be able to challenge provider consolidation that has driven up prices to serve as a cost-control backstop.
Cooperatives might be able to provide some backup in some parts of the nation, but they are not going to have the ability to be a cost-control backstop, much less a benchmark for private plans, because they are not going to have the reach or authority to implement innovative delivery and payment reforms. And so Conrad's idea appears to be yet another compromised compromise that cuts the heart out the idea of public plan choice on the alter of political expediency. [The Treatment blog post, 6/14/09]
From the August 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: All right. Here's my final question for you. Look, they may be repositioning where they are. I don't believe they've given up their ultimate goal --
STEYN: No, no.
HANNITY: -- which is the elimination of the employee benefit system, a single-payer system. Obama is on record as even saying he wants.
Where does this end up? Do they now go back to the drawing board, come up with new talking points? Do they go through incrementalism? What do you think?
STEYN: No. They want an embryo plan that contains within it the seeds for a government health care system.
STEYN: Yeah.
HANNITY: But is a co-op any different than the so-called public option?
STEYN: No, I don't think so, because in the end if you have a government perspective on health care, it leads to rationing. The thing about a death panel isn't that it's a panel that actually says, "We're denying you this treatment." It's that the whole system is, in fact, a kind of death panel, because it has to make judgments about letting --
HANNITY: Right. Right.
STEYN: -- Mr. Smith live and Mr. Jones live. It's the nationalization of your body.
HANNITY: I'm so glad --
STEYN: They have the -- the government says we have the right to decide whether you can have your hip replaced.
HANNITY: They have the right to decide that. They ration care. They dictate the price. They dictate the supply, and they run competition out of the market.
STEYN: That's right. That's right. It's happened everywhere.
[...]
REED: Sean, let me tell you how weak a position he's in. He is now caving on one of the central tenets of his major domestic policy initiative, waving the white flag of surrender, not to get a single Republican vote. This is to try to keep his own party together.
HANNITY: Yes, I think there's truth to that, but I'm a little more cynical than you, because I think --
REED: I can't imagine that.
HANNITY: Well, I -- no, no. I think -- I think the cooperative plan is basically the same thing with a new packaging.
BOB BECKEL (Fox News contributor): Oh, come on.
HANNITY: I don't think -- this is still going to be government-run health care.
REED: They will try. They will try. You're right.
BECKEL: Can I say one thing here? Do you mind if the liberal side of this panel says something for a second? First of all, waving the white flag of surrender, that's something new. Hannity used that one five years ago on the war, against me. But look, let me explain something to you.
HANNITY: You got very angry that night.
BECKEL: I did get very angry, but I'm not going to be tonight. You know why? Because I'm in a good mood. I'm still trying to figure out what -- what Greta was talking about, six months -- but that's all right.
Look, the fact of the matter is at this very desk two months ago, I told you that we're going to end up with cooperatives. Cooperatives had been -- were started in 1929. A lot of them worked very well. They are not going to be some cover for some public plan.
And here's where you're both dead wrong. There is going to be a health bill passed. The Democrats cannot afford not to have it passed. And here's my secret for you tonight. It's going to include tort reform, and the Republicans are not going to be able to sit back and be against it.
REED: They'll never go against the trial lawyers.
BECKEL: And I will repeat: Barack Obama is the greatest president since Franklin Roosevelt.
HANNITY: You're out of your mind.
BECKEL: I know, you keep saying that, but I think I'll say it.
HANNITY: The problem with government-run health care is not just the public option. It's government control over the means, the services, the pricing, and the supply. And that's where we get into the specificity of whatever this final bill is going to be. If they control that, that's government-run health care.
ISABEL KAPLAN (author, Hancock Park): This isn't about a government-control health care system.
HANNITY: It absolutely is.
KAPLAN: It's about providing an option -- an option for the people who have no means of health care at the current time.
And I think the bill is absolutely not dead. And Nancy Pelosi came out again today saying that she's in firm support of having a public option. And Howard Dean, many other congressmen --
HANNITY: Here's the problem. If the government says, you know, for example, if they're going to manage us, who's covered and who's not covered, who gets to charge what, and who gets to get what care, it's still government-run.
KAPLAN: The idea is to provide more competition.
REED: Look, the co-op -- Sean, the co-op they're talking about is going to be heavily subsidized by the federal government.
HANNITY: Exactly.
REED: They're talking about initial subsidy of $3 billion. You know that that's just the tip of the iceberg. They're always wrong on their projections. So this thing is going to be multiples of that.
And here's the other thing. Remember that the public option, the government-run plan now masquerading as a co-op, is going to set rates below market rates. It will be subsidized with your and my tax dollars. And you know what that's going to do? That's going to lead to substandard care across the board, and it's going to be a major problem.
Democrats, just do it- we elected a majority and don't expect you to wimp out. If you can't do this year, WHEN?
What has Cuba done to help the advancement of healthcare, what about France, Canada, U.K, please share. Sweden yes in 1976 had the CAT scan but in the U.S we had been doing the same.
First, I'd say in the Constitution, that the right for health care is contained right in the Preamble, let me quote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'm pretty sure, that having healthcare for our citizens would indeed promote the general welfare of the country, don't you?
From Thomas Jefferson
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of
the United States, that is to say, 'to lay taxes for
the purpose of providing for the general welfare.'
For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general
welfare the purpose for which the power is to be
exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for
any purpose they please; but only to pay the
debts or provide for the welfare of the Union."
Thomas Jefferson
debts or provide for the welfare of the Union"
How is reforming health care not "providing for the welfare"?
"They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for
any purpose they please" does not contradict having a single payer plan or any other plan as long is it provides for the welfare of the union. Our current situation is a mess - and not good for our "welfare"
"All I hear about is how great other governments who have socialized medicine"
Yup. I saw this from a Canadian doctor. The Canadian system, unlike what you have heard from the right wing attack media is popular and more efficient. Such a system would not be the end of the world... unless you are a pencil pushing bureaucrat in at an HMO
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rachlis3-2009aug03,0,538126.story
"Since those countries do not have the funds to help with new techniques, they wait for us."
The Canadians spend so much less per GDP on health care that if we had their system, we could invest in R&D with the xtra money!
Maybe a baldness cure. We've already got several ED drugs out there. Heck here at the Cleveland Clinic they just completed a full face transplant. But we haven't cured MD or cancer or aids or parkinsons despite BILLIONS of dollars being spent.
All we get are new "drugs" to manage the problem, not cure it. Heck, now you can get an anti-depression drug to take if your regular anti-depression drug doesn't completely do the job.
Your worshipping at the altar of big pharma is not a pretty sight.
If this is how they want to play, scrap the co-op and reinstate the public option. Done. Period. End of stroy.
WHEN ARE THE DEM'S GOING TO GROW A SPINE AND START TREATING THE MINOROITY AS SUCH?!
The Republican strategy is as follows:
1) Obstruct everything so that Obama can't solve any of the problems facing the country.
2) Campaign in 2012 by saying "Obama couldn't solve any of the country's problems, so vote "Palin" (or whomever) for PROGRESS!"
When are the dem's going to wake up and realize this?!
Yeah... unlike the for-profit corporate scum that ALREADY FRICKEN DO THAT!!!!
Are you stupid or were you just drawn that way??
"Keep the government out of my health care!!"
Another prime example, look at the guy in Arizona who was carrying around his assault rifle. He wasn't from AZ.
Guy in NH carrying? Not from NH.
The union goons eh? I'm pretty sure you just made that one up.
So step aside and let the adults run the show.
Good. I hope they hear your voice Mark. Maybe you can explain to them how no programs that FDR instituted are still running today, or that Arabs played no part in the development of mathematics, or that McVeigh was a Democrat. We would love to have your voice heard as the voice behind the opposition Mark. Who all wants stand behind the guy who doesn't know what the hell FDR did?
But what I've gathered from your post is that you're FOR expensive emergency room treatments for illegals and AGAINST cheap preventative care.
You are delusional. And heartless.
Another Issue with the HR Bill - Lets look at Texas for an example, once they passed Tort reform just over 10 years ago, the cost of health care has gone done and the more doctors have moved in, increase competition and for the doctors less cost for malpractice insurance. Also, because the doctors are not spending as much time testing to cover the backside, they now are able to bring the cost of every day health care down as well. What I find funny, nowhere in a 1000 plus page bill was there anything about tort reform? There was plenty of room for the government to step and tell you how to raise your child, room for them to take money out of your back or check your bank account to see if you have the funds, room for review panels, room to push private insurance out the door, but no room for tort reform.
If the big bad insurance companies did not have to pay out so much money in lawsuits which most of the time are just people looking for a payday, maybe our insurance would not be so much.
Maybe tort reform is something that needs to be reviewed and or looked at, but I'd also say, that without the potential for individual citizens to hold big businesses accountable, then they can run roughshod over people. My father in law is a medical malpractice lawyer in Florida (for the defense), and he said that it is sad that people who now bring legit lawsuits cannot hold companies, or doctors, accountable for what has been done to them in error, due to tort reform. Also, if you do tort reform, you're going to lose a lot of jobs there as well.
When has the govt told you how to raise your child? They haven't.
When have they last checked your bank account or checking account? They haven't.
Nobody is talking about pushing private insurance out the door. They're still going to exist, and they're still going to make a ton of money, don't worry yourself about them.
If the insurance companies are paying out so much money in lawsuits, as you claim, how have their profits climbed steadily over the last 10 years?
Mags, yes they do want to push private practice out the door, a private company can not compete with the government, the same goverment that does not have to make money to stay in business, also why in the bill does it put a 8% increase on payroll taxes if you do not use (meet) the government plan. (push out the private insurance from companies)
What is their profit margin, you do not look at total dollars, you look at profite margin. If they had the same profit margin as Google, then you would see them really rolling in the cash.
Google - Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm): 20.56%
Blue Cross / Blue Shield - Blue Cross-Blue Shield aims for a profit margin of between 1.5 and 2 percent. Last year's margin was almost zero.
United - 3.97
Aetna - 4%
Humana - 3.57
So if we use Google as your example, guess they are more greedy then the insurance companies
The bank account BS has been debunked, as in, the govt is going to reach in and take out your money. Pure and total and utter BS.
If, as we keep hearing, private companies are SOOOO good at what they do, why do they have to fear govt competition? I keep hearing this argument, but isn't it true that if the govt does get into providing insurance on more levels, won't the private practices have to follow suit, make their practices and business more streamlined and more efficient, and cheaper run, therefore reducing cost to fall in line? This is WHY competition is good. I thought you guys loved the free market?
I hardly doubt that insurance companies are hurting for profit. I don't have a problem with people making lots of money, good for them. But they need to provide a better product.
Mags, this is from; John David Lewis - Prof from Duke
The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says
Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.
From the bill itself
Section 207 (c)(1) DEDICATED PAYMENTS- There is hereby appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the following:
(A) TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of health insurance coverage for individuals).
(B) EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON EMPLOYERS NOT PROVIDING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- The amounts received in the Treasury under section 3111(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to employers electing to not provide health benefits).
(C) EXCISE TAX ON FAILURES TO MEET CERTAIN HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS- The amounts received in the Treasury under section 4980H(b) (relating to excise tax with respect to failure to meet health coverage participation requirements).
(2) APPROPRIATIONS TO COVER GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS- There are hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Trust Fund, an amount equivalent to the amount of payments made from the Trust Fund under subsection (b) plus such amounts as are necessary reduced by the amounts deposited under paragraph (1).
- Sections 121 & 122 (25-30) – A newly established Benefits Advisory Committee will recommend a minimum benefit standard, to be adopted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which all qualified plans must adhere to. Any plan operating outside of the Exchange need to offer at least an essential benefits package consisting of ten categories of services: hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; physician services; durable medical equipment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services; mental health services; preventive services; maternity benefits; and well child care for children under 21 years old.
Section 440 of the House bill – Home Visitation Programs for Families with Young Children and Families Expecting Children – would provide grants to states to establish home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. The “well-trained and competent staff” will:
…provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains…modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices; [and] skills to interact with their child…
“adhere to clear evidence-based models of home visitation that have demonstrated positive effects on important program-determined child and parenting outcomes, such as reducing abuse and neglect and improving child health and development”;
So what does all of that mean.
(psst - there is no bill).
If that doesn't say it all. That is wonderful, mark. You conclude your own post with a "now tell me what it is I am talking about". You are brilliant.
Also, if a health care provider feels the government is not providing sufficient compensation, they can simply bill the patient for the rest. That's how it works in the private sector and that's how it will work in the public sector.
The rest of what you posted sets the minimum standards for health insurance policies in the same way the government has set a minimum wage for which an employer must pay you for your services. Just as there are penalties for an employer paying under the minimum wage, there will be penalties if the minimum for health insurance policies are tossed aside.
United - 3.97
Aetna - 4%
Humana - 3.57"
Well, if that is truly their profit margin then they should be out of business because they are incompetent. Anyway with a cursory understanding of economics (as in not you, Mark) understands that the for maximum profit model will never work with healthcare.
You can never cover everybody in a free market. The whole idea of setting a price in the free market is that you will keep some people from either being able to afford the product or be willing to pay the price. If everyone can afford the product you are selling then you are not charging enough for your product. The free market will dictate that the prices for whatever product will continue to rise until inevitably some cannot afford it. This is the way the market works. We can get into more details with you Mark if necessary, but you have shown no ability to understand if the simplest of abstract ideas. I am confident I have already confused you.
They also had to pay out enormous sums of money to even their invesotrs. What does that tell you about a company who even rips off the poeple who invested with them or are insured by them.
here...
here...
here...
This was just from the first page of google !
If anyone saw a reduction in their insurance premiums in Texas after tort reform, please chile in with the amount. Sen. McKaskill asked this in a town hall meeting citing tort reform in MO. No hands went up.
We can only hope that President Obama is truly playing a serious game of chess and that potentially, this is what he may have wanted in the first place??
Give up, whatever you try to give them, they will still not vote for it.
Just pass the public option and the h**ll with the right wing nut cases.
Thats how things get done in politics. I'm getting tired of thses spineless democrats.
The reasoning by MMfA is here is obtuse at best.
Tort reform.
Take a real good look at what the Republicans want to do.
I live in Texas, where we've had this "reform" for several years.
It ain't working for the public like it's working for the Insurance Companies.
It's a way to white-wash the issue with problem Drs, and it removes your right to seek damages for malpractice.
These folks will cite a lot of frivolous lawsuits as proof of their cause, but fail to cite that most of these lawsuits either didn't win, or were tossed out by the judges. Anyone can sue. But, they don't always win.
It is American, and our right to sue.
Are there frivolous lawsuits? Of course, I'm not going to pretend like those don't exist, but, and for the most part and I'd say the vast majority are legit, and the only way you can make some companies pay attention is to hit them in the wallet.
What's funny about tort reform is that they want Big Government deciding what your life and limb are worth, not us individuals on a jury, the traditional American way. And it's an arbitrary amount, not based on degree of injury. Completely favors Big Med, punishes consumers.
Further, frivolous lawsuits of any kind were already illegal in Texas. Any lawyer doing so is liable for treble damages. And here I thought wingers were for less laws, not more. Inconsistent as usual.
I'm sick of these spineless Democrats ceding half the battle before they even take the field. They opened this debate from a compromised position when they wouldn't even consider single payer. Then they gave away the public option. Maybe the Dems can still get a promise from the insurance industry that they'll play nice with the public. That would be super.
Damn sissies. I'm so disgusted with Democrats right now I could spit!