Why Are We Obsessed With The Public Option?

Posted on 09/06/2009 at 6:23 pm by Bob Cesca

UPDATE: Bumped.

Thought I’d summarize why support for the public option is so tenacious. Here are 10 reasons.

1) Quick definition. The public option as proposed by the House bill and the HELP bill is a government-run health insurance policy that Americans could choose to purchase in lieu of a private health insurance plan. Rates and administrative overhead would be similar to Medicare (which is very affordable and popular). Overhead for Medicare is 3 percent compared with upwards of 40 percent for private insurance corporations.

2) The public option is supported by anywhere from 50-80 percent of the American people. Many polls show strong majority support from Republicans and Independents.

3) Competition from the public option incentivizes private insurers to reduce their premiums and provide better overall service in order to compete. So even people who don’t sign up for the public option will see many benefits from the increased competition.

4) The public option might lead to a single-payer government health insurance system, but not a governent takeover of the entire healthcare system.

5) The public option is, in fact, a compromise position for liberals and progressives — it’s not a core policy position. Recent demand to either eliminate the public option or to weaken it is absolutely one compromise too many. We’ve played fair politics by moving closer to the center, now it’s the center’s turn to meet us here. Not the other way around.

6) The public option is an option of good conscience. One aspect of achieving “universal healthcare” is by mandating that everyone buy insurance. However, mandating that Americans buy a corporate health insurance policy amounts to a massive and compulsory giveaway to private, for-profit health insurance providers who have a long history of abusive and deadly practices, as well as using our money to finance record-breaking CEO salaries and bonuses. The public option is therefore an escape hatch for those of us who understand that mandates are necessary but who refuse to subsidize what we consider to be a legalized criminal enterprise.

7) The public option would be affordable, portable and reliable. If you can’t afford your premium, there will be subsidies to help you. You can take your policy with you no matter where you go. And you will never have to worry about being dropped from your policy or being denied coverage when/if you’re sick or injured.
8) The public option will save hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. For example, the CBO estimates that the cost of the Senate HELP Committee’s reform bill will drop by as much as $400 billion over ten years if the public option is included. How does this work? See also numbers 3 and 9. In short: Competition reduces costs and premiums finance the system.

9) The public option is not free health insurance. Americans who choose to enroll would have to pay a premium just as with Medicare. So “you” wouldn’t be financing “my” health insurance. (Also, no other nation has “free” health insurance. People in those nations either pay a premium or a higher tax rate in order to finance the system.)

10) Employers would not be able to sign up their employees for the public option right away. This would phase in over many years. However, employees have never been able to choose their own health insurance provider. Furthermore, no one will lose their health insurance. Under a compulsory universal system, this would be practically impossible. Meanwhile, however, tens of thousands of Americans are losing their health insurance every month — in the current free market system. 3,000 Americans — the same as were killed on 9/11 — die every two months for a lack of affordable healthcare.

Feel free to add to the list in the comments.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • roxsteady

    Here’s a good one I just read over on dailykos – Mcjoan writes the following about Ezra Klein:if no health care legislation passes, and Democrats lose seats as a result, Blue Dogs are the people who will lose the seats, not Progressives. Even if Klein is correct and Democrats lose a bunch of seats because Progressives blocked it, Blue Dogs are actually the ones who will bear the brunt of those losses. As such, Blue Dogs have more to lose if health care fails to pass than Progressives.I couldn’t have said it better myself. The president seems to have the wrong take on this.

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com Nanotyrannus

    Exactly, rox. If this fails, no one’s going to be targeting Anthony Weiner or Nancy Pelosi. It’ll be the fucking Blue Dogs that suffer our wrath.I don’t have anything to add to that Bob. I think you laid it all out very nicely.

  • MrBrink

    Love this.Look out Declaration of Independence!”We hold these truths to be self-evident…”You bet your ass we do!

  • Jan

    Oh don’t worry we’ll get a bill so the democrats can brag about it.But it will suck. I hope that every single Blue Dog gets kicked to the curb next year when people notice how bad it sucks. Because of them. Because they chose to protect the insurance companies instead of us.

  • ceu

    Democrats lose seats as a result, Blue Dogs are the people who will lose the seats, not ProgressivesThey will lose those seats to Republicans and consequently, we will all lose.

  • http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090903_dont_be_fooled_by_the_public_option/ Terri

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090903_dont_be_fooled_by_the_public_option/Don't be fooled by the Public OptionSullivan writes that public option advocates once promised a program as far-reaching as Medicare but “now promote something entirely different. To make matters worse, they have not told the public they have backpedaled. The campaign for the ‘public option’ resembles the classic bait-and-switch scam: Tell your customers you’ve got one thing for sale, when in fact you are selling something very different.”Sullivan documents how the public option has been watered down since Jacob Hacker, a political science professor now back at Yale after a stint at UC Berkeley, proposed it several years ago. Hacker first estimated that 129 million would be covered, drawn by its generous terms. But the public option plans now before Congress would cover no more than 10 million, Sullivan said. Reducing subsidies to low-income people has cut the number covered, while limits on private insurance benefits have been eased.In addition, the public option would actually be run by insurance companies such as Blue Cross, acting as contractors for the federal government. What is everyone arguing over? Heads they win, tails they win.Referring to a bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, Sullivan writes that the language of these provisions is so complex “it requires at least two readings to understand it.” The language of this and the other bills is no doubt designed to be purposely incomprehensible to most lawmakers, who will receive the final bill only at the last moment. The bills certainly are not being written to be understood by the general public.Another important issue being decided in private is what precisely will Americans get from the new plan. “What level of subsidies [will] be available to make coverage more affordable for people?” asked Drew Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “What kind of coverage will people receive, and will it meet the public’s expectations?”

  • Chris Koeber

    Terri,Every bill is bloody by the time it reaches the floor.The whole point is is to get something that is worthing building on!Even if we get a shitty public option you can build on it. Amendments are a hundred times easier to pass than initial legislation. Look at SCHIP as the prime example. Saw how the expansion passed without fanfair?However, if the initial bill is completely worthless (aka no public option) then it is hard to build on.I say let’s get a public option, even a weak one, in there initially and then build on it.One brick at a time….

  • Terri

    Chris — I don’t see it the same way.Bob’s title is “why we are obsessed with the Pub Opt” and I feel it’s totally not worth being obsessed over for passage — obsess over it for what it doesn’t do and how it continues to feed the big, ugly fat cats that we all collectively hate.Here’s what my friend wrote to me about the PO:The words that follow are from a friend, not me, but they capture my sentiment:the”public option” as spelled out in the Obama plan is nothing more than a private insurance co-op plan . This is a warmed over version of blue cross which was the result of a series of deals cooked up during the the 30′s.this co-op plan with some very “strict” you guys better be nice to people rules on the private insurance conglomerates is a simple bait and switch.The only rules which will stick are ,everyone has to join. Employers have to provide some form of this .The only change which will occur is going to be that the private insurance co-op will bury those of us who won’t be able to buy into an actual health maintainence plan.This will dilute the medicare program which is the only actual competition that the private insurance ccs have .I’ve heard a figure of buying groups of 10,000 people.The only real public option which would bring real change for the people would be the expansion of the Govt. administered medicare program.Look at the history of all of the private health insurance co-ops. All of them have been simply overwhelmed by the private insurance industry.Who are being investigated for fraud as we speak.A more correct term for the Obama plan would be the public relation option.The only real change which will occur will be a massive give away to private insurance. The only “we” who believes in it is the private insurance companies and the web spinners who are selling this crap to the people.

  • http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/print Terri

    Read:Sick and WrongHow Washington is screwing up health care reform – and why it may take a revolt to fix ithttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/printMATT TAIBBIPosted Sep 03, 2009 11:33 AMThe letter was an amazing end run around the political problem posed by the public option — i.e., its unassailable status as a more efficient and cheaper health care alternative. The Blue Dogs were demanding that the very thing that makes the public option work — curbing costs to taxpayers by reimbursing doctors at Medicare rates plus five percent — be scrapped. Instead, the Blue Dogs wanted compensation rates for doctors to be jacked up, on the government’s tab. The very Democrats who make a point of boasting about their unwavering commitment to fiscal conservatism were lobbying, in essence, for a big fat piece of government pork for doctors. “Cost should be the number-one concern to the Blue Dogs,” grouses Rep. Woolsey. “That’s why they’re Blue Dogs.”In the end, the Blue Dogs won. When the House commerce committee passed its bill, the public option no longer paid Medicare-plus-five-percent. Instead, it required the government to negotiate rates with providers, ensuring that costs would be dramatically higher. According to one Democratic aide, the concession would bump the price of the public option by $1,800 a year for the average family of four.In one fell swoop, the public plan went from being significantly cheaper than private insurance to costing, well, “about the same as what we have now,” as one Senate aide puts it. This was the worst of both worlds, the kind of take-the-fork-in-the-road nonsolution that has been the peculiar specialty of Democrats ever since Bill Clinton invented a new way to smoke weed. The party could now sell voters on the idea that it was offering a “public option” without technically lying, while at the same time reassuring health care providers that the public option it was passing would not imperil the industry’s market share.Even more revolting, when Pelosi was asked on July 31st if she worried that progressives in the House would yank their support of the bill because of the sellout to conservatives, she literally laughed out loud. “Are the progressives going to take down universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans?” she said, chuckling heartily to reporters. “I don’t think so.”The laugh said everything about what the mainstream Democratic Party is all about. It finds the notion that it has to pay anything more than lip service to its professed values funny. “It’s a joke,” complains one Democratic aide. “This is all a game to these people — and they’re good at it.”The concession to the Blue Dogs comes at a potentially disastrous price: Without a public option that drives down prices, the cost of other health care reforms being considered by Congress will almost certainly skyrocket. The trade-off with conservatives might be understandable, if those other reforms were actually useful. But this is Congress we’re talking about.

  • likala

    Why did you bump this Bob, so we could all see how Terri’s still spamming the comments?

  • kansasdem

    #X:I have a “public option”! It’s called Medicare. It pays consistently and the cost is reasonable.Of course there are deductibles and such, but I have a supplement plan that’s regulated by Medicare rules, and each year from November 15th thru December 31st I have the opportunity to change supplement plans.I have freedom of choice with a guarantee of basic coverage! Uh …………… just what Obama campaigned on!

  • DaBomb

    @Likala- She has not one original thought whatsoever. Of course Matt Tabbi knows exactly what’s going on, because he’s crafting the health care reform bill. Right…

  • likala

    Agreed DaBomb, and I’m fed up with Taibbi and his know it all stance as well as a lot of others that know only rumors and conjecture that fits into their own agenda whatever the hell that might be.

  • MrBrink

    For the price of a few F-22 Raptors a year over the next ten years, we could easily allocate toward good universal coverage for all Americans.Kind of criminal that our priorities are so screwed up.

  • DP23

    I’m glad Bob bumped this one. It’s one of the best of the last few days (or much longer). An unfortunate “side consequence”–Terri’s words–of bringing up this post is that Terri’s spam comes with it.And hey, the more Bob’s excellent posts are bumped the less we see of Lee trying to show him up and pick a fight which comes with less Terri bowing and adoring Lee in the comments. Like she has done with several others, including Bob. There is a whole chapter in the DSM-4 on this one.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/a-moments-silence-for-the_b_276480.html Terri

    Hey folks!If it was spam — he’d block me. So, knock off the spamming talk.You’re posting / I’m posting. Period.I cannot get behind this bill at all. It’s so lame in so many ways. There is so much dust being kicked up and it’s not even worth fighting for!The only thing that makes it so critical is what it means to Obama, politically. This seems to suddenly be the “make or break” issue for him politically.Other than that the actual bill is garbage.The Public Option is now the symbolic representation of Obama’s ability to govern effectively and keep his power: nothing more.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    If it was spam — he’d block me.

    You’re making it very tempting, Terri. Most commenters post their own opinions rather than repeatedly spamming the comments with links and full-text articles from other people.It’s spam.I know you’re enthusiastic about your position, but I would strongly advise that you employ some discretion. Your goal is to convince people, but you’re just pissing everyone off.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Also, I bumped this post because I thought it might be useful for y’all to mail around. I think we sometimes need summaries like this to crystalize our positions.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/a-moments-silence-for-the_b_276480.html Terri

    Bob — I’m not pissing everybody off. I have found agreement among several of your own posters/ readers.While it is angering some — and perhaps you — it is not angering all.Additionally, I do represent the more hardcore liberal progressives and so I feel that my input here has some significant relevance.I will be more aware then of posting my ideas in my own words — I have found some published items that have captured my sentiments on the issue rather effectively. I didn’t realize that that was considered spam, but now I know.Thanks for the heads up on that. I appreciate it.Terri

  • Eric

    (…apologies for co-opting a popular phrase for the purposes of this post, but it popped into my head a few days back and continues to resonate…)Bell-shaped curves have consequences.

  • DP23

    Shall we take a poll?

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    I don’t think a poll is necessary. The battle lines have been drawn.It reminds me of my year on a grand jury here in Denver. We had a record of consistent five minute indictments. We always agreed. Then one case split the jury. It was our only “no decision” for the whole year. The jury immediately split and no one would budge.I just don’t understand the idea that somehow we’re going to convince Washington to pass a single-payer plan when we can hardly keep the public option on the table.

  • DP23

    It was a rhetorical question, Nano, directed at Terri about whether she pisses off more than just a few people. I didn’t mean a poll on the public option.

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    OOhhhhh.Ok. Yeah, let’s have a poll then. :)

  • likala

    Hey DP,This is a great and helpful post from Bob.Thanks Bob!I didn’t mean to disparage it by my comment last night.But along with it came a lot of spam and yes it pissed me off especially since he’s been warning her about it for a week or so.Apparently some people think they can badger others into thinking like they do. Not gonna happen here my dear!!

  • DP23

    IMO, likala, this post is Bob’s finest hour. And I’ve been reading some mighty fine hours for over a year. This. Is. It.

  • likala

    Totally agree DP and the reason I keep coming back. Bob doesn’t shove rumor with un-named sources and his own agenda down anyones throat, just lays it out there like a good journalist would and lets people make their own decisions.