Politico suggests conflict between public option and "cost-conscious" lawmakers
A September 8 Politico article described opponents of a public health insurance option as "cost-conscious" in false contrast to "liberals who demand a public option." In fact, both the House and Senate health care reform bills require the public plan to be self-sustaining, and the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a public option did "not have a substantial effect on the cost" of the Senate health committee bill.
Politico characterizes opponents of public option as "cost-conscious"
From the September 8 Politico article:
After a summer of setbacks, President Barack Obama has a clear roadmap for salvaging health care reform:
Convince skeptical Americans that a new system would actually help them, not limit their choices and care. Strike a compromise between liberals who demand a public option and cost-conscious centrists who call it a deal-breaker. Win over Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an inscrutable moderate. And avoid Death Panels II, a rerun of the potent Republican attacks.
Contrary to Politico's contrast, public plan premiums would cover cost
House, Senate bills require premiums to cover costs of public plan. Both the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP committee's bill require the public plan to charge premiums sufficient to cover administrative costs as well as the cost of enrollees' benefits.
From the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives:
SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner --
(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of --
(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.
From the Affordable Health Choices Act as passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee:
''(5) PREMIUMS. --
''(A) PREMIUMS SUFFICIENT TO COVER COSTS. -- The Secretary shall set premium rates in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs (including claims and administrative costs) using methods in general use by qualified health plans.
CBO: Senate bill's public plan does "not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections." In its July 2 preliminary analysis of the Senate HELP committee's bill, CBO found that, in the words of CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, the public option "did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates -- and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."
They could have the greatest PR skills in the world--wouldn't matter--the corporate media will still drive the debate according to what right-wing talk radio and Fox and the Noise Machine demands.
The corporations were on high alert to attack health care reform, and they found the way to do it. If they didn't have the Town Hall crapola, they would have found something else.
"Ma'am it's a testiment to the first amendment that this sort of vile, contemptible nonsense is propagated so freely."
But, if we had more Barney Franks, the media would have spun it as Democratic arrogance, Democratic bullying, and then gone blithely on to the Death Panels, and all the rest of the lies and B.S.. They would just have portrayed poor conservative Town Hallers as victims.
You're right. Democrats are not speaking firmly as a united front.
We are already paying more in public money alone (per person) than most countries with single payer systems that take care of everyone and toss out the plague of bureaucrats, letting the Doctors make the decisions.
Sweet fancy moses...the old time and materials con...used by those that don't have a clue what the costs will be...lawls.
While the CBO projects a $200+ billion hit to the deficit in the first 10 years...the costs explode during the last 5 years. They laughingly predict a "profit" of $45 billion in the first 5 years.
Then as the program matures...the second 5 years balloons to a deficit of $283 billion.
What happens in years 10-20? Easily deficit spending in the trillions of dollars given the govt's track record of managing Medicare.
wesley, was that you posting last Friday as wizbor4654?
How as a nation we spend twice as much on medical coverage as those damn socialists (Great Britain, Japan, France, etc., etc., etc.) and get a much worse result. It's well-known that all these countries are just itching to have the bloated, broken, chaotic, incredibly expensive system that we have in the U.S. All these cute little countries are just clamoring to have Wall Street health care.
Next up, Wesley will tell us how this bloated, privatized, Wall Street mess is "Good for Small Businesses."
France's health system is largely financed by the state and has been hailed as the best in the world by the World Health Organization. It is also one of the most costly and the government constantly struggles to control spending. - PARIS (Reuters)