Dean's 2004 plan was solid, but the following two provisions sound like the Senate bill:
Establish a Universal Health Benefits Program (UHBP), offering a choice of private insurance plans identical to those for members of Congress and federal employees, at affordable rates.
This is exactly like the Senate bill's OPM plan. But the OPM plan specifies that only non-profit policies can be offered. And...
Provide refundable tax credits to the uninsured to help them afford premiums for the Universal Health Benefits Program.
This is essentially amounts to a subsidy to be paid to private insurers.
So Dean's plan is very similar to the current Senate OPM plan with a giveaway to private insurers and no public option. But he wants to kill the present bill and start over because of similar features. I don't get it.
On the upside, while Dean's plan would've automatically enrolled everyone in a private insurance plan from the UHBP via our tax returns, Americans could opt out. The Senate bill allows us to opt out as well, but we have to pay a penalty -- $750 a year at its maximum phased-in level.
Other than the wiggle room on the mandates, how was Dean's proposal so different than the Senate bill? I mean, Dean never even proposed a public option and, like President Obama, insisted that single-payer couldn't be passed and therefore shouldn't be attempted.