White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

[William Haskins]

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters* but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

* indeed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4017164

[Robert Toy]

Not a bad move for the administration, the solution for competition in the insurance sector is lifting the inter-state restrictions.

[William Haskins]

except that he campaigned on it and said less than a month ago that e wouldn't sign any bill without a public option.

[Bartholomew]

Oh, goody, we fought so much and so hard with one another, that, once again, no one will get a damn thing they wanted.

[Robert Toy]

except that he campaigned on it and said less than a month ago that e wouldn't sign any bill without a public option.
that's called the zero option

[Fran]

Is this the only way Obama could get any reform endorsed by the Republicans? Is this better than nothing?

Yours cluelessly, as ever...

[Don]

Gee, isn't it funny how the one thing that might have wrested a bit of control from the evil corporations is going to get dropped in the name of "political expediency?"

Whoda thunkit? I'm certain the possibility never crossed anyone's minds before the very second the trial balloon was inflated and released.

A cynic might even assume that was the plan all along, but we all know government is neither that evil nor that intelligent. Why, it would take a Machiavelli to come up with such a plan. Besides, that would require both wings of the Republicrat party to be be in collusion. :rolleyes:

[blacbird]

Isn't this the way participatory democratic politics ought to work? People have had the opportunity to debate and discuss (vociferously, I might add) an important issue and legislation aimed at dealing with it, and possibly reshape it into a more acceptable form. The Administration has listened, and is evidently considering revisions. Obama has a veto-proof Senate majority on his side, and could possibly ram the original program down everyone's throat, and he's not doing that.

Contrast this with the my-way-or-highway manner in which the Bush-Cheney White House handled things.

caw

[William Haskins]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A key Senate negotiator said Sunday that President Barack Obama should drop his push for a government-funded public health insurance option because the Senate will never pass it.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad said on "FOX News Sunday."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/16/democratic-senator-public-health-insurance-option-dead/

[Robert Toy]

Isn't this the way participatory democratic politics ought to work? People have had the opportunity to debate and discuss (vociferously, I might add) an important issue and legislation aimed at dealing with it, and possibly reshape it into a more acceptable form. The Administration has listened, and is evidently considering revisions. Obama has a veto-proof Senate majority on his side, and could possibly ram the original program down everyone's throat, and he's not doing that.

Contrast this with the my-way-or-highway manner in which the Bush-Cheney White House handled things.

caw
You almost make it sound like the administration sought out and agreed to this democratic process…if it were not for the summer recess do you think this would have happened?

The Bush-Cheney contrast was useful.

[Bird of Prey]

Nonprofit cooperatives are a great idea, actually better than government run. As long as everybody has an option to sign up, that should pretty much finish the current "let em bleed for greed" corporations.

[sulong]

Gee, isn't it funny how the one thing that might have wrested a bit of control from the evil corporations is going to get dropped in the name of "political expediency?"

Whoda thunkit? I'm certain the possibility never crossed anyone's minds before the very second the trial balloon was inflated and released.

A cynic might even assume that was the plan all along, but we all know government is neither that evil nor that intelligent. Why, it would take a Machiavelli to come up with such a plan. Besides, that would require both wings of the Republicrat party to be be in collusion. :rolleyes:

I think you're a day late and a dollar short here Don. "The one thing" came and went last September.
We've known since then that the power was being consolidated.

[Robert Toy]

Nonprofit cooperatives are a great idea, actually better than government run. As long as everybody has an option to sign up, that should pretty much finish the current "let em bleed for greed" corporations.
I hope you don't think I was suggesting a nonprofit cooperative.

It's a horrible idea, who would run it?

[AMCrenshaw]

a nonprofit cooperative.

who runs any?

[Xelebes]

I hope you don't think I was suggesting a nonprofit cooperative.

It's a horrible idea, who would run it?

It's a non-profit, so it would be private sector given the mandate by the government to operate a non-profit organisation.

[Xelebes]

who runs any?

Don't tell me you haven't seen a co-op run effectively. HAve you been to a small town co-op store? They are similar in design.

[Don]

Has anybody looked at some of the salaries for "non-profit" organizations lately? Non-profit does not necessarily mean low salary. All it means is no profits for the owners -- after expenses -- including salaries.

[Robert Toy]

It's a non-profit, so it would be private sector given the mandate by the government to operate a non-profit organisation.
In other words a government organization

[Xelebes]

In other words a government organization

If that's how you prefer to view it, sure.

[Robert Toy]

If that's how you prefer to view it, sure.
the elimination of the current for profit insurance industry for a “non profit” government run organization is socialized medicine…just what this administration claims it will not do.

[Xelebes]

the elimination of the current for profit insurance industry for a “non profit” government run organization is socialized medicine…just what this administration claims it will not do.

Sure, if that's what you prefer to label it as.

Truth is, with only a mandate, Congress would have no control over it beyond saying that the organisation cannot distribute profits to the owners and that it provides health insurance.

[Robert Toy]

Truth is, with only a mandate, Congress would have no control over it beyond saying that the organisation cannot distribute profits to the owners and that it provides health insurance.
No control...except total control.

And who are the "owners"

[Xelebes]

No control...except total control.

And who are the "owners"

As with most non-profits, there is no owner. All surplus revenue would be filed in the Retained Earnings account, which would be then used for any upgrades.

[Robert Toy]

As with most non-profits, there is no owner. All surplus revenue would be filed in the Retained Earnings account, which would be then used for any upgrades.
Any ideas what to do with the existing insurance companies?

[rugcat]

WASHINGTON (CNN) Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster. That is the key. The Senate could pass a bill with the public option without a single Republican vote, even with a few Democratic defectors. But they'll never get it past the filibuster.

So the question is, will a bill with some elements of reform be better than no bill at all, leaving the status quo in effect?

Personally, I think not. I think a public option is the heart of any reform, and the compromise bill that will emerge will not only do little good, it may actually be so complex and patchwork that it will do harm.

And yes, I blame both the health insurance industry and conservatives. The have no interest in true reform, and will strangle any bill that addresses the problem in a basic way. (And hurts insurance profits.)

[Prozyan]

Like this whole fiasco was ever about "reform" anyway. Even with a public option, there is nothing addressing the underlying causes of why the health system is broken. And a hint for you guys that think profit is evil: Greed has nothing to do with it.

All this bill has been about is scoring political points for the administration, so they could put a check mark on a campaign promise.

[Don]

Exactly, Prozyan. I'll refer everyone once again to the article (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care) that Cranky posted. It gave a concise explanation of several issues that must be addressed, none of which appear on the legislators' radar screens, AFAIK.

[Prozyan]

Thinking further, this health care "reform" is perfect reflection of one of the problems with our health care system: Its seeking to treat the symptoms without bothering to explore and correct the underlying cause.

[Xelebes]

Any ideas what to do with the existing insurance companies?

They either compete by providing better service, find other sectors to expand in or go out of business. The true American way.

[Robert Toy]

They either compete by providing better service, find other sectors to expand in or go out of business. The true American way.
how can they compete with a non-profit government organization?

[Don]

They can't, Robert.

And now you know... the rest of the story. :D

[escritora]

how can they compete with a non-profit government organization?

Do you ask this question because you haven't heard Obama's response on the issue? Or because you don't agree with his position?

[MattW]

Thinking further, this health care "reform" is perfect reflection of one of the problems with our health care system: Its seeking to treat the symptoms without bothering to explore and correct the underlying cause.
Something is just starting to shift in some of the more thoughtful areas of medical-healthcare-complex. They are beginning to realize it isn't about sales numbers, prescriptions written, tests orders, or beds filled. A few hospitals I see are going that way, one or two big industry services companies, and even smaller pharma companies.

It is about patient outcomes. If you tie all success measures to that you can make a profit and still help all comers without bloating costs or billing.

And you don't need trillion dollar government infrastructure to oversee it.

[Robert Toy]

Do you ask this question because you haven't heard Obama's response on the issue? Or because you don't agree with his position?
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3933974&postcount=1

[MattW]

how DARE they compete with a non-profit government organization?
Fixed

[rugcat]

Thinking further, this health care "reform" is perfect reflection of one of the problems with our health care system: Its seeking to treat the symptoms without bothering to explore and correct the underlying cause.The underlying problem is a healthcare system based on profit. Profit is not an evil, but it's not the right paradigm for a healthcare system.

In a previous thread, (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3815118#post3815118)I explained how it's good business for an insurance company to deny coverage for certain tests, even if they save lives. Ironically, yesterday arch conservative Charles Krauthammer (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009664642_krauthammer15.html) used the exact same reasoning to show why preventative care will not cut health care costs, but actually increase them.

The connection he failed to make was that the profit motive and heath care are not a good match

[escritora]

Something is just starting to shift in some of the more thoughtful areas of medical-healthcare-complex. They are beginning to realize it isn't about sales numbers, prescriptions written, tests orders, or beds filled. A few hospitals I see are going that way, one or two big industry services companies, and even smaller pharma companies.

It is about patient outcomes. If you tie all success measures to that you can make a profit and still help all comers without bloating costs or billing.

And you don't need trillion dollar government infrastructure to oversee it.

Can you provide sources?

[MattW]

Can you provide sources?Nothing published - all firsthand as an evil industry insider. And it's isolated at the moment, not widespread.

I'll see if I can find anything on the webnets.

[escritora]

Nothing published - all firsthand as an evil industry insider. And it's isolated at the moment, not widespread.

Thanks for responding. You don't have to fish.

Since when have you noticed this shift? And in your opinion what is driving it?

[Robert Toy]

The underlying problem is a healthcare system based on profit. Profit is not an evil, but it's not the right paradigm for a healthcare system.

In a previous thread, (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3815118#post3815118)I explained how it's good business for an insurance company to deny coverage for certain tests, even if they save lives. Ironically, yesterday arch conservative Charles Krauthammer (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009664642_krauthammer15.html) used the exact same reasoning to show why preventative care will not cut health care costs, but actually increase them.

The connection he failed to make was that the profit motive and heath care are not a good match
Obama categorical rejected looking at any "advantages" in the Canadian or UK system stating that "we need a uniquely American solution", meaning that we will always have a for profit system.

Assuming he means what he says about not wanting a total government controlled system.

[MattW]

Thanks for responding. You don't have to fish.

Since when have you noticed this shift? And in your opinion what is driving it?
It's been less than one year for certain.

I think it's realiziation of two facts: 1- positive corporate image is an asset, and is bolstered by sustainable, patient friendly tactics to achieve business results, and 2- fear that radical government intervention in the industry will force much more drastic changes and they are trying to stay ahead and stay differentiated.

Note - no insurance company I know of is doing this. They might be, but I couldn't even speculate (like I am doing everywhere else).

[rugcat]

Obama categorical rejected looking at any "advantages" in the Canadian or UK system stating that "we need a uniquely American solution", meaning that we will always have a for profit system.

Assuming he means what he says about not wanting a total government controlled system.I think he recognizes that people will simply not accept a total government sysytem. It's anathema for too many Americans, irrespective of any intrinsic benefits or drawbacks.

[Cranky]

That is the key. The Senate could pass a bill with the public option without a single Republican vote, even with a few Democratic defectors. But they'll never get it past the filibuster.

So the question is, will a bill with some elements of reform be better than no bill at all, leaving the status quo in effect?

Personally, I think not. I think a public option is the heart of any reform, and the compromise bill that will emerge will not only do little good, it may actually be so complex and patchwork that it will do harm.

And yes, I blame both the health insurance industry and conservatives. The have no interest in true reform, and will strangle any bill that addresses the problem in a basic way. (And hurts insurance profits.)

I gotta nitpick the bolded, Rugcat. I don't think anyone believes that our current system is working very well at all, so I doubt they're against "true reform". Well, conservatives, that is. I don't want to/can't speculate on insurance companies.

The rub is that they can't agree with liberals what "true reform" looks like. So yeah, I'm quibbling about true reform. Because the way you're phrasing it, it's coming across as "if it's not what liberals want, it's not 'true' reform." Solly, but that's how I'm reading it, anyway. And I disagree that liberals have the "true reform" plan pretty heavily.

[William Haskins]

the only 'conservatives' to blame are the blue dogs. if obama had the complete backing of this party, the republican minority could do little more than sit back and watch.

i'm sure it will be spun by some as a chilling fear that blue hairs would be bussed in on confederate-flag festooned buses to burn crosses on the white house lawn but, ultimately, this is more a sign of the insurance lobby's deathgrip on democratic politicians.

[Prozyan]

The underlying problem is a healthcare system based on profit.

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Especially as it pertains to the words I bolded.

[Bird of Prey]

the elimination of the current for profit insurance industry for a “non profit” government run organization is socialized medicine…just what this administration claims it will not do.


I think it's brilliant. What a great shot across the bow. Lol!!

[rugcat]

I gotta nitpick the bolded, Rugcat. I don't think anyone believes that our current system is working very well at all, so I doubt they're against "true reform". Well, conservatives, that is. I don't want to/can't speculate on insurance companies.Sure, everyone’s in favor of “reform” just like everyone is in favor of “what’s good for the country.” (Except insurance companies.)

The problem, I think, is basically ideological. Liberals believe that government has a crucial role to play in health care. Most conservatives do not – in fact, the less the better. I don’t see any way we’re going to find consensus on this.

I’ve heard many conservatives say the US has the best health care system in the world. And in many ways, that’s true – for some of us. If you have money, or a great employer based plan, you’re in fine shape. If you’re one of the 40 odd million uninsured, not so much.

But again, most conservatives see nothing wrong with this – sort of a social Darwinism, where health care is a privilege one earns, not a universal right. Again, a basic disagreement.

I’ve also seen the belief expressed by many that the government cannot run a health care program – that it will be a massive boondoggle, with rationing, poor care, horrible outcomes, and yes, even the infamous death panels. But the same people who are saying this are also saying that a public option would be so attractive to people that private insurers won’t be able to compete, and will driven out of business. This makes no sense to me – except that the ones saying these things are determined to kill a public option, no matter what.

I just saw Orrin Hatch on TV explaining how the public option would destroy private companies.
He quoted a study by the Lewin group, which he characterized as one of the best analysts of health insurance issues, if not the very best. He failed to mention that it’s a subsidiary of United Healthcare, (http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/04/lewin-group-linked-to-private-insurers/)the largest private insurer in the country. This type of disingenuous argument is typical of opponents in the political sphere.

When all is said and done, after years and years of talk, nothing substantial will be accomplished. And it’s conservatives who have blocked every attempt at reform over the years, no matter what is proposed, as things have become worse and worse.

[rugcat]

the only 'conservatives' to blame are the blue dogs. if obama had the complete backing of this party, the republican minority could do little more than sit back and watch.Democrats, for better or worse, are not a monolithic party. Blue dog Democrats are from conservative districts and states, and often have more in common with Repubicans than with their fellow Dems.

[William Haskins]

If you’re one of the 40 odd million uninsured, not so much.

the 40 million uninsured is something of a specious talking point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32302292/ns/health-health_care/

also, from http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx


Myth:There are between 40 million and 50 million uninsured Americans. President Obama referred to “46 million uninsured Americans” in May 2009.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Fact: Anyone who reports that there are more than 46 million uninsured is exaggerating since the Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured at 45,657,000 people.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Fact: Nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.” That makes every media claim of uninsured Americans higher than 35.9 million is wrong.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Myth:The 40 million to 50 million uninsured cannot afford health insurance.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Fact: More than 17 million of the uninsured make at least $50,000 per year (the median household income of $50,233) – 8.4 million make $50,000 to $74,999 per year and 9.1 million make $75,000 or higher. Two economists working at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that25 to 75 percent of those who do not purchase health insurance coverage “could afford to do so.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Myth: The 40 million to 50 million uninsured do not get health care.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Fact: The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">National</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> for Policy Analysis estimates that uninsured people get about $1,500 of free health care per year, or $6,000 per family of four. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Fact: An Urban Institute study found that 25 percent of the uninsured already qualify for government health insurance programs.

[Xelebes]

how can they compete with a non-profit government organization?


There is various ways. For a for-profit premium, you get extra benefits. Or is that the flaw of the for-profit model in this industry?

[Robert Toy]

Does anyone think that the currently uninsured will be covered for free under the proposed health care plan?

Free meaning they will not be obligated to pay insurance premiums.

[William Haskins]

we can be fairly certain that a quarter of them would not, unless the government has a mechanism for compelling non-citizens to pay, which of course would beg the question as to why they can't compel them to comply with immigration laws in the first place.

[Robert Toy]

William,

I was excluding non-citizens, just the good old Americans would be covered under the HC plan.

[SHBueche]

Actually the town hall meetings were making me nervous, reading about all the people entering the meetings with guns in tow (legally), what about public input via online? Of course then you would have to insure access for those w/o Internet capabilities.

[Bird of Prey]

Who is covered and who isn't right now isn't going to make a darn bit of difference in six to eight years, when about half the country won't be able to afford insurance, and the only ones eligible will be the ones in perfect health. So the uninsured are gonna wind up at the emergency room, go bankrupt, and who do you think is going to pay for their care??

This isn't about just NOW. And the stats mean nothing. They're probably not even reliable. . . .

[Robert Toy]

glad to see you have the Obama "non-scare" rhetoric down pat

[robeiae]

If no one can afford insurance to the point that they don't have any, the insurance companies will cease to be profitable and will collapse or change their ways of doing business.

Regardless, the biggest problem--imo--is this continued insistence that health insurance is some kind of necessity. It shouldn't be, and if everyone is forced to have it, it ceases to actually be insurance.

[mscelina]

Interesting. The Democrat-controlled White House and the filibuster-proof Dem-controlled Congress are compromising on their major legislation talking point and somehow it's all the Conservatives' fault?

Wow. Nice circular logic there.

Mandatory health insurance is not the problem. Affordable health care is. Penalizing the people who can afford niether private insurance or the government-mandated insurance is going to what? Oh...that's right! Take away more money they can't afford to lose thereby making it more dificult for them to deal with a medical situation that should arise.

[Robert Toy]

Interesting. The Democrat-controlled White House and the filibuster-proof Dem-controlled Congress are compromising on their major legislation talking point and somehow it's all the Conservatives' fault?

Wow. Nice circular logic there.

Mandatory health insurance is not the problem. Affordable health care is. Penalizing the people who can afford niether private insurance or the government-mandated insurance is going to what? Oh...that's right! Take away more money they can't afford to lose thereby making it more dificult for them to deal with a medical situation that should arise.
Nope, the correction for those who cannot afford the insurance is government subsidies paid for by increased taxes from the "wealthy"

[mscelina]

Nope, the correction for those who cannot afford the insurance is government subsidies paid for by increased taxes from the "wealthy"

Suuuuu-uuuuuuure. That's the way it always works out.

[nighttimer]

Thinking further, this health care "reform" is perfect reflection of one of the problems with our health care system: Its seeking to treat the symptoms without bothering to explore and correct the underlying cause.

Fixing health care is a different issue than fixing health care access and coverage. Anyone expecting any legislation to fix every facet at the same time is dreaming while awake.

Entire groups were not coverage by Medicare when it was instituted and were added later. Whether or not health care reform solves the problems of poor medical practices doesn't mean the whole initiative should be scrapped until it does.

As far as the OP goes, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs doesn't quite agree with Secretary of Health Sebelius.

Speaking to CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized that President Barack Obama still supports having a “public option” for health care, which the White House believes will introduce additional competition and lower prices in the insurance market.

The statement runs contrary to claims by other officials and reports circulating other media on Sunday.

“The president believes this option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition,” Gibbs told CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/16/ftn/main5245252.shtml?tag=stack).

He added: “I think most of what you are seeing on TV, no offense, is good TV, and that’s about it.”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/16/gibbs-white-house-still-supports-public-option/

And apparently fodder for debating and talking points as well. :rolleyes:

[rugcat]

Interesting. The Democrat-controlled White House and the filibuster-proof Dem-controlled Congress are compromising on their major legislation talking point and somehow it's all the Conservatives' fault?

Wow. Nice circular logic there.Yes, it's the fault of the one or two democrats who oppose it, not the 40 republicans.

And note I said conservatives. Just because there are a few conservatives who wear the democratic hat doesn't make them not conservatives.

Mandatory health insurance is not the problem. Affordable health care is. Penalizing the people who can afford niether private insurance or the government-mandated insurance is going to what? Oh...that's right! Take away more money they can't afford to lose thereby making it more dificult for them to deal with a medical situation that should arise.I believe we were talking about a public option. Conservative politicians oppose it because they believe it will hurt the insurance companies.

Let me remind you that back in 1965 a majority of Republicans in the senate voted against the bill establishing Medicare. Same arguments back then -- it would destroy our health care system.

[Gregg]

It's a non-profit, so it would be private sector given the mandate by the government to operate a non-profit organisation.


The Post Office is mandated to be non-profit. Trouble is they are currently negative-profit (spelled l-o-s-s).

How would this be different?
Realizing that the Post Office is not a government agency (altho they do get a small subsidy from the feds, have a monopoly on delivering letters, and do not pay income taxes if they happen to make a profit)

[Xelebes]

The Post Office is mandated to be non-profit. Trouble is they are currently negative-profit (spelled l-o-s-s).

How would this be different?
Realizing that the Post Office is not a government agency (altho they do get a small subsidy from the feds, have a monopoly on delivering letters, and do not pay income taxes if they happen to make a profit)

How many consecutive quarters have they posted a loss?

[robeiae]

Apparently (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/08/24_billion_quarterly_loss_for.html), the USPS has posted a loss in eleven of the last twelve quarters.

That decline has contributed to losses in 11 of the last 12 fiscal quarters, according to the new figures released by the service.

But that's not the whole story, here. The USPS still gets money from the Feds, and some things that should be "costs/losses" on its balance sheet are not there, because the Feds cover them in various ways.

[William Haskins]

Yes, it's the fault of the one or two democrats who oppose it, not the 40 republicans.

there are still a lot of undeclared democratic senators:

http://standwithdrdean.com/where_congress_stands?chamber=Senate&party=D&state=&hc_status=&commit=Filter

[Robert Toy]

Just in case you didn't watch the town hall on this issue.

http://www.breitbart.tv/bold-student-challenges-obama-to-oxford-style-debate-on-health-care-reform/

only 4 mins...enjoy