Amazing what spines these pols have when someone calls them on their BS.

Ben, “reading comprehension” can be fun!

Here’s what Ben’s buddy, Mark Pryor, proposes on his web page.

Tax credits

Approximately 500,000 Arkansans are uninsured, which means almost one out of every five people living in our state has no health coverage at all. To that end I support tax credits to help employers obtain health insurance for their employees and tax credits for individuals who purchase coverage on their own.

i don’t understand how any public plan is going to work. is there somewhere i can read about exactly a good public option plan will work with enough detail to estimate things like how much it would cost, how many people are expected to be covered and especially what the regulation for a “level playing field” is going to be?

i’d like to be able to compare the pros and cons of public option / private plans with single payer plans. but right now, all the public option plans i can find looks like smoke and mirrors and worse, a regulatory nightmare that would be a cake walk for the insurance industry to game.

pryor is an idiot. unless the goal is to make the system more expensive and more tied to employment.

Well, I’m glad the fucker backed down, but he still has to go. Who’s running against him?

On Senator Lincoln’s health care “issue” page.

A search for two words:

Care: 3 times
Insurance: 25 times

I had to check and see if Ben Nelson is a Democrat or a Republican. He votes very much like a Republican, but he is a Democrat. Easy to remember now. He is one of the Nelson twins that aren’t really sure if they are Democrats. They know they don’t like flag burning, stem cell research or gays getting married. They love insurance companies, big pharma, and telco.

Heh, he really does appear to be a dumb man.

Also could be a plagiarist since his plan sounds exactly like John McCain’s.

Kaiser would probably take the lead. There was a young doctor at Netroots last summer explaining how beautifully Kaiser is in line to take this on. All electronic records, etc. It was a private discussion, but this guy had just been promoted in San Diego County, and I believe he could speak for Kaiser. (Plus his wife is a total lefty I know from campaigns!)

I’m on Kaiser, and it is awesome. You go to an appointment ON TIME and you’re seen on time. I’ve seen people 10 minutes late needing to re-schedule. Plus, I get reminders of when I need tests or whatever. It’s nothing like any insurance I’ve ever had. Prevention is key.

the dems have been telling us they would do wonderful things if only we would help them win elections. now they have control of the congress and the presidency and all they seem to want to do is funnel money to their big corporate donors — in the case of health care it looks like that’s the insurance companies.

It’s promising that we’re finally applying enough pressure from the Progressive side to make these lilly-livered pols squirm and capitulate a little. Usually all the squirming and changing of positions always goes the other way.

So we’re slowly having an impact — but we need to not only keep the pressure up, but increase it steadily to make sure we get something more than just rearranging the deck chairs.

I’m working with my local county democrats to organize some kind of public event around health care — even if I have to do all the work myself.

If I read the chart in the referenced post correctly and doing some mental figures, the insurance industry sucks up between 800 and 1000 dollars per capita as profit. No wonder they would rather die than have a true public plan.

i’m glad you have good insurance. i’ve had some good experiences in past too — but that is not the case for millions of americans.

and right now, with just the money being spent right now, we have enough for every american to have health care without co-pays, deductibles, etc. it’s a crime that hundreds of billions of dollars a year are being wasted on insurance companies.

did you see the bill moyers program on single payer health care last friday? it was great, i’ll get the links…

What what WHAT?!?

I knew Ben Nelson was an idiotic turd, but this is amazing. Can he do nothing without the lobbyists who own him perched on his shoulder?

Well. So a little sunlight/pressure can work, even on a BlueDog.

We’ll see, of course, if he takes action in accord with his climbdown.

Baucus next? Any ads in his territory?

the insurance companies still get their money, even with a public option — at least from what i’ve read. if you have different info, i’d love to read it. if we want that money to be used on health care instead, we have to fight for single payer.

Update: Nelson backs down:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) backed off his opposition to a public option in a meeting with health care advocates on Wednesday in Nebraska. Nelson, according to two people in the room, told the group that he was open to a public option, the primary Democratic goal of reform and anathema to conservatives.

Pretty much any way you look at it, Nelson is a lying SOS.

Single payer on the table, please. As long as the insurance companies are in the picture and they increase their profits by denying care, this will all just be a charade. I’m a radical on this one: health insurance companies are an evil that must be destroyed.

Obama last year proposed “a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.”

Hmm. What I didn’t know until a day or so ago is that members of Congress don’t have a “public plan.” What they have is generous subsidies on private premiums, plus kid-glove treatment from their insurance carriers, who’d be loathe to screw a Senator the way they screw regular folk.

Offering that kind of insurance, even with comparable subsidies, to the general public would not generate the economies inherent in a Medicare-like public plan, much less the economies of straight-up single payer.

Can he do nothing without the lobbyists who own him perched on his shoulder?

*clapping*

sorry – it’s just that I’m just a big fan of rhetorical questions.

Glad to hear this, Loo Hoo. I knew Kaiser was great years ago, but thought I had read that they were no longer following this plan.

Back in the early ’70’s in Boston I was briefly a member of the Harvard Community Health Plan, an early HMO modeled after Kaiser. (HMO didn’t mean the same thing then it does today.) Prevention was its goal, too.
It, too, had its own centers, doctors, nurses, radiology, labs, etc. on-site. It was great. Even in the few months I was on it, I used it a few times (I had more health problems in my 20’s than I do now, LOL), and really liked it.
Of course, since it was a benefit of my employer and I soon lost that job (couldn’t type well enough, otherwise overqualified, so they told me), I lost the coverage.

What are these people thinking of, tax credits for employers to buy insurance? The WHOLE POINT of reform is to get health innsurance DEtached from employment.

Citizen selise:

I can understand your concern but if you think about it, hangin’ the “public option” on the framework of Medicare and covering birth to 18 years and allowing all folks 55 years old and up to buy in while removin’ the cap from the Social Security tax would be a perfect transition that doesn’t dislocate the entire insurance industry work force immediately, allows the remainin’ insurance companies to compete for the healthiest and drives costs down to make healthcare accessable to everyone.

I give the remainin’ insurance industry 5 years before they throw their hands up and move their money into hedge funds ( a little joke, dear).

I agree, we NEED a single-payer plan. The only part of Schumer’s plan linked to above I (partially) agree with is the need to pay providers a fair price.

I know from working for the state medical association and hospitals that providers lose money on every Medicaid patient (at least in Indiana) and barely break even on many Medicare patients. Some providers game the system, but if you play by the rules you won’t make enough money to stay in business if it was solely for the Medicare and Medicaid patients.

So if we, in and ideal world, would completely eliminate the for-profit insurance industry and have a national single-payer plan [which I think we should] we just need to make sure the reimbursement rates are fair and are frequently updated to make sure they remain fair.

But if the for-profit insurance companies can dole out billion dollar bonuses to their executives and still pay better than government plans, I think that could probably be done pretty easily by a national government-run plan.

Thanks, Selise!

bill moyers last friday had an entire program devoted to single payer health care. moyers is always good, but this was one of his very best. must see tv. here are some links:

blog entry: Single-Payer: Is Nationalized Health Coverage the Way to Go?

“It’s a great idea from the left, which is public financing, combined with a great idea from the right, which is private delivery. And you put it together in one system that takes out the waste and the abuse that’s really happening, which is where all the money really goes in health insurance. Up to 30 percent of the costs have nothing to do with healthcare at all and everything to do with fueling the health insurance needs… We’ve got to have a national health program, we just have to do it. It’s the only way we fix this mess. It’s spun out of control, it’s gonna bury us financially, it’s gonna mortgage our children, and it kills people.” — Donna Smith

video part 1:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..watch.html

video part 2:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..atch2.html

here’s another bit:

Single-payer advocate Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the nonpartisan public interest group PUBLIC CITIZEN told Bill Moyers that plans similar to what Obama is proposing have failed on the state level:

“In seven states, ranging from Washington to Minnesota to Maine, they have tried what amounts to a mixture of a private and a public plan. And in none of the states has there been any sustained reduction in the number of uninsured. It’s way too expensive. As long as you have private plans in there, everybody still has to do all the bookkeeping and everything. So, it has failed. As Einstein said, ‘The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again, and expecting to have a different result.’ We’ve seen the same unsatisfactory, unacceptable result, in state after state after state after state after state, why mess up the whole country with it?”

another link to the bill moyers program on single payer – the transcript for folks who can’t watch the video:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..ript4.html

here is a bit:

BILL MOYERS: Dr. Wolfe, I am puzzled as a journalist as to why this subject of single-payer, whether one is for it or against it, seems totally out of the debate in Washington. It’s just not on the table. And it’s not in the- on the radar screen of the press. Why do you think that is?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: I think the reason is, unfortunately, simple and frightening. Which is the power of the health insurance industry. Whereas, only about one out of 14 people trust the insurance industry as being honest and trustworthy.

BILL MOYERS: That’s a poll?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: It’s a Harris poll last fall. One out of 14 people think that the health insurance industry is honest and trustworthy. On the other hand, in Washington, they’re in bed with the health insurance industry. Just as Wall Street and the banks have bought the Congress to get what they want in terms of the bailout, the health insurance industry has bought and influenced members of Congress and the President so much that they don’t even consider the possibility of a plan that doesn’t have a health insurance industry.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: That’s the big problem here is people want to find a solution that they can get through without a big fight with the insurance industry. Unfortunately it’s economically and medically nonsensical – you can’t actually have a health care program that works, if you keep the insurance industry alive.

“It’s a great idea from the left, which is public financing, combined with a great idea from the right, which is private delivery. And you put it together in one system that takes out the waste and the abuse

What a great frame for this!!!! If we can present this as the truly bipartisan solution maybe we’ll get some traction.

I guess according to polls, We the People are already convinced, it’s just our elected representatives who refuse to bite the corporate hands that feed them.

lol! i wish!

seriously though, as per usual the devil is in the details, and when i try to drill down it just doesn’t add up. :(

Single payer on the table, please. As long as the insurance companies are in the picture and they increase their profits by denying care, this will all just be a charade. I’m a radical on this one: health insurance companies are an evil that must be destroyed.

amen. me too.

and something else — just think of the good it would do for manufacturing industry jobs in the usa if the overhead of employer based health insurance was removed!

I am not sure if there are any costs out there associated with providers as to what it costs for them to deal with insurance companies. Aside from billing there is the matter of dealing with what is and isn’t covered, appealing decisions etc.

That’s the ultra-best-case scenario for a public option, and it ain’t gonna happen without massive mobilization in favor of single payer. Otherwise, we’ll see a Schumer-style pseudo-public plan, jiggered from the start to keep the insurance companies in the game, fat and happy.

Meanwhile, for additional quality footage of Baucus’s unctuousness, from just last week, see this video.

See especially the clip starting at 8:00, transcribed below. This is Baucus speaking at a Kaiser Foundation forum last week:

I think everything’s going to stay on the table, but big portions will be modified and sculpted…. One example is public option. You know, that’s a hot button. And I do suspect that a version will be there. Now by saying that, I don’t want to frighten people, particularly on the industry side, [who’ll] say, ‘Uh oh, there they go. Baucus said public option. The deal’s off.’ All I’m saying is there are ways to skin the cat, there are ways to find solutions, there are ways I think to do this ultimately in a way that’s acceptable.

Anyone who watches this and still imagines that any kind of “public option” that gets through Baucus will be a hop, skip, and jump from single payer needs to spend a month in detox, paying out of pocket, of course.

(Oh, and elsewhere he clearly acknowledges that single payer is not part of the “everything” on the table.)

The question is simple why can’t I have the same insurance as you. Nelson is worm he lies out of both sides of his mouth and the other end as well. We need to start building a new party to replace the two party.

Perhaps someone can correct me if my logic is wrong?

1. Private insurance co. #1 increases it’s profits relative to all its competitors by underwriting. This systematically excludes those most likely to put in a claim for coverage, driving higher cost ‘consumers’ to its competitors.

2. This forces all other private insurance companies to follow, leading to an oligopolistic ‘race to the bottom’ as more and more ‘consumers’ are excluded in the race to maximise profits.

3. 2009: 50 million uninsured and (perhaps) another 30 million seriously underinsured (US population ~ 300 million; $1 in $6 spent on ‘healthcare’ with no end in sight).

4. The only logic left, assuming the ‘unfeasibility’ of single-payer is
to police this madness with a non-private competitor to force an end to this vicious cycle. Given the timing of this push, with the ABSOLUTE political necessity for Obama & the Democrats to show results in 2010/2012, this suggests a mini-’medicare for all’ style solution. This requires enough price padding in premiums to allow continued profitability for the insurance companies.

There simply isn’t enough time to set up 40+ state solutions a la Massachusetts. All this suggests a national public plan will still allow much restricted private co. underwriting with price capping to keep public costs from skyrocketing. No wonder everyone agrees that ‘the devil’s in the details’.

With the like’s of Baucus/Senate Blue Dogs & the insurance co. ‘wholly-owned’ senators like Dodd, threatening the 59/40 balance, there’s every reason for caution. However, as Nelson’s apparent act of self-preservation (along with Wyden’s recent prevarication) shows there’s also no doubt about the strength of the tail winds!

Let’s hope his definition of “public plan” isn’t Chuck Schumer’s non-public plan.

Yeah Right Keep Hammering him Jane!

“public option” could mean several things. You need to know the specifics being discussed before you can compare it to other things. Who could get it? What kinds of plans would you have available? Would government subsidize and how much? Who would execute the plan, gov’t or private insurers? There are many parts to consider.

wrt Pryor’s idea: Tax credits won’t work unless you pay so much in taxes that a cut would be worth $6K or so. Who pays so much that a cut would produce that?

selise wrote:

… option plan will work with enough detail to estimate things like how much it would cost, how many people are expected to be covered and especially what the regulation for a “level playing field” is going to be?

How many people are to be covered depends entirely upon the concept. Is it an expansion of aid to the poor or a catch-all for those who can’t get employer-based or private insurance they can afford?

If gov’t creates and runs the plan there is the question of how to avoid having it dominate the field and ruin the concept of having competing insurers. If you have gov’t offer a plan and control payout, then there are also philosphical questions of whether you force doctors to accept ONLY that. But, it does cover everyone and control costs before the country goes bankrupt from it. It would also probably be cheaper to run with only one set of administrators. Rahm Emanuel’s brother is a doctor who has spoken against it, saying it would be incredibly risky to do with 300 million people.

selise also wrote that the Dems seem interested in funneling money to the insurance companies.

I don’t understand how you could come to that conclusion. The insurance companies have fought health care reform tooth and nail and don’t support Dems. If a Dem plan favors insurance companies it’s considered a major concession, not desirable. Most Libs hate the idea because they would rather see the ‘blood-suckers’ bankrupted.

Yes, not as efficient as one (gov’t) company running it all. But, it might enable individuals to have more access to plans across the country (maybe) and therefore more competition in the market.

And, if they say no more exclusion for prior health issues, then everybody gets covered. And, if they say no more ins. co. doctors interfering in medicine, then quality might go up.

A lot depends upon structure and a lot on all the other incentives and regulations and so on.

Well, getting insurance detached from employers may be ONE idea. There are others like improved quality, standardization of care across the country, lowering costs, improving availability, etc.

Who sets the price?

If the gov’t does then you risk all the doctors walking away.
If the docs do, then you save nothing.

There’s no market, no competition, nothing to control costs properly.

Whether you go single-payer or not it would be good to enable people to get decent insurance & care without being tied to their company. Portability is valuable.

As per drilling down, maybe you need to go Green and ’see the light’ instead of using the old oily metaphor. :-)

Problem is, insurance is not the same as coverage.

As long as coverage remains in the hands of companies with a fiduciary obligation to attempt to withhold benefit payouts, patients will lose money, and a portion will go bankrupt, not for lack of a policy but from the surprise bills that trickle in after a supposedly covered treatment or procedure.

Feel free to imagine that competition plus regulation will prevent that. But what you’re really arguing is that the entire rest of the world is wrong by adopting predominantly nonprofit (single payer or otherwise) systems.

Yep, thats my Senator Ben.