Looks like the Public Option is going down. In part because of CBO report that said Obama's

[JohnWxy]

health care reform plan (or something similar, since the Dems have proposed a couple versions) would cost an additional $1.3 trillion.

Here is an excellent report on the cost of health care ... with reform (like Obama's plan) ...AND WITHOUT REFORM -- continuing as we are.
This study was done by the the Lewin Group for the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance
Health System.


Yes, with the reform the costs go up. But WITHOUT the reform the costs go up MORE about $3 trillion more.



http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/News/The%20Path%20to%20a%20High%20Performance%20US%20Health%20System%20Agenda/Path%20Press%20Release%20FINAL%2021809%20rev.pdf

"The U.S. is expected to spend $42 trillion on health care over the next 11
years, with spending rising 6.7 percent per year. By rationalizing the care system, including
payment and information system reforms, the Commission’s strategic approach could
substantially slow the increase in spending, to 5.5 percent per year, and at the same time provide
coverage and access for all. The cumulative savings would accrue to families, business, and the
public sector. Analysis indicates savings would extend across all income groups."

...

New York, NY, February 19, 2009— A comprehensive set of insurance, payment, and system
reforms could guarantee affordable health insurance coverage, improve health outcomes, and
slow the growth of health spending by $3 trillion by the end of the next decade, according to a
new report released today by the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance
Health System.
The report,http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2009/Feb/The%20Path%20to%20a%20High%20Performance%20US%20Health%20System/1237_Commission_path_high_perform_US_hlt_sys_WEB_rev_03052009.pdf">The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System: A 2020 Vision and the Policies to Pave the Way,
details the Commission’s recommendations for an integrated set of policies and assesses the impacts
of specific policy actions from 2010 to 2020, compared to the status quo.

~~
~~

A central recommendation is to create a national insurance exchange that would offer a choice of
private plans and a new public plan, coupled with insurance reforms that would make coverage
affordable, ensure access, and lower administrative costs. Building on this foundation, the report
recommends policies that would change the way the nation pays for care, invest in information
systems to improve quality and safety, and promote health.

The report’s analysis indicates that insurance reforms would extend coverage to everyone within
two years, with only 1 percent uninsured throughout the next decade. If combined with payment
and system reforms initiated in 2010, the integrated approach to reform could slow the growth of
national health spending by a cumulative $3 trillion by 2020.

(more)


By the way, if you feel like letting your representatives or Senators know how you feel go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt
and send them a message.

I suggest you advise them that "COMPROMISE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. EITHER WE GET A PUBLIC OPTION OR LET IT GO DOWN."

NO "CO:OPS" THEY WILL NOT BE BIG ENOUGH TO PROCUCE ANY SAVINGS. LATER, THOSE WHO KILLEDD THE PUBLIC OPTION AND OFFERED THIS COMPROMISE WILL SAY "SEE, I TOLD YOU THE PUBLIC OPTION WOULDN'T PRODUCE SAVINGS!" --- NO. TELL THEM "NO COMPROMISE". THEY SHOULD TELL THOSE WHO WANT TO KILL THE PUBLIC OPTION THAT THEY WILL GET THE CREDIT FOR KILLING WHAT 70% OF THE PEOPLE WANT AND THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE MONEY ON HEALTH CARE (SINCE THE SINGLE PAYER WAS OFF THE TABLE BY GOP EDICT).

THIS SHOULD NOT BE A NEGOTIABLE POINT. PUBLIC OPTION OR NOTHING. LET THOSE WHO KILLED THE PUBLIC OPTION GET ALL THE CREDIT THEY DESERVE FOR WHAT THE PEOPLE NEED. THE PUBLIC OPTION MUST INCLUDE NEGOTIATION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES TO OBTAIN BULK PRICING (as thE Veterans Administration does). ALSO ADVISES THEM TO MAKE SURE TO NOT LET THE LOBBYISTS (GOP) SLIP PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT EVISCERATES IT, THUS MAKING IT A PUBLIC OPTION IN NAME ONLY.

ITS A REAL PUBLIC OPTION, WITH A REAL CHANCE FOR COST SAVINGS --- OR NOTHING.

[masuki bance]

1. Gibbs: Obama Has No Preference For Public Plan Over Co-ops

White House Press Briefing:

Gibbs: Again, maybe I want to be clear for Laura and for you. I don’t believe that the President has come down one versus the other in terms of denoting co-ops equal to or above public option. I can talk to the health team about that.

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/07/28/gibbs-obama-has-no-preference-for-public-plan-over-co-ops/

[quiller4]

7. Obama answered that himself later in the day coming down clearly

for public option at the AARP gathering.

[masuki bance]

10. He argued for the public option, yes. But, has not said co-ops are worse

"This is controversial, and I understand some people are worried about this," he conceded. But, "we do think that it makes sense to have a public option alongside the private option. ... I think that helps keep the insurance companies honest because now they have somebody to compete with." He also denied that it would be a Canada-style, "socialized" plan.

And yet, at today's White House press briefing Robert Gibbs seemed reluctant to weigh in as to whether a plan for health care co-ops in lieu of a public option would be acceptable to the White House.

"I know the president's test is, do we have adequate choice and competition for private insurance?" he said, later adding: "Without having seen the finance committee bill, it's hard for us to come down and fully evaluate it."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/07/will_obama_sign_a_bill_with_no.html

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. The last CBO report that came out scored the House plan (I think)

as deficit neutral. One of the problems is that with all the competing plans in play, no one can keep straight which plan one is talking about when.

[Thrill]

3. Obama has told Progressive bloggers to don't overreact

Just wait until he can get a bill into Congress. Lets wait and see. He clearly is still pushing the public Option.

[Zen Democrat]

4. The Lewin Group???? Do you know who that is???? A sub of United Healthcare!!!!

Anything from the Lewin Group is insurance industry talking points.

Besides, I think the Public Option is going to the President's desk. It may not be in the Senate bill, but it will be in the House bill -- and I believe the joint committee will have it in. Then there will be a vote up or down in the House, and a vote up or down in the Senate. And it shall come to pass!

[keopeli]

9. Amen!

[JohnWxy]

13. I wish I could share your confidence. but i don't see it happening. The thing the Blue Dog

Democrats are bringing up is the CBO report that says the reform as "proposed" will cost $1.3 trillion. What they left out is: "What is the cost of doing nothing?".

If you know of a better study than referred to I would like to know about it. I am open to good information on the cost of doing nothing compared to the cost of reform.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=467653&mesg_id=467697

[Doctor_J]

19. The Lewin Group is a propaganda arm of Big Insurance

this report is trash

[KoKo]

21. Yes...they are front for United Health Care Insurance Co.....

They've been debunked for putting out propaganda for their side.

[Deep13]

5. Um, maybe we should, you know...

...RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH YOU FUCKING IDIOT SENATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Teaser]

6. FAILPOST

.

[keopeli]

8. CAUTION: The Lewin Group, whom you quote, is completely owned by a Health Insurance Company.

They paid over 400 million in settlements and fines for distorting information so the insurance companies could rip off the consumer.

ALL information put out by the Lewin Group is dubious and should NOT be trusted. There was a lengthy story in the Washington Post last week regarding this group and their ties to the Health Care industry. If you want references and links, Google is your friend.

That being said, what the Insurance companies want is for Public Option defenders to lose steam, lose motivation, so when Congress reconvenes we won't apply even more pressure. Don't let them run our country. They are spending millions and millions of dollars to get their way. For us, it will take millions and millions of voices. But, if we unite, we will win. Don't give up at half-time.

Peace

[TheDebbieDee]

11. Thank you for that bit of info. Now l know to ignore the OP...........

[JohnWxy]

12. anybody is free to inform us of another study. I am interested in any information on this.

The study said the public option by there calculations would SAVE MONEY OVER DOING NOTHING.

Do you know of a study with different results or which you consider better? IF so please inform.

Are you saying this study which said the pubic option would SAVE money is not to be believed?

OR do you prefer the CBO study?

[Doctor_J]

20. You can also choose to get "News" from Limpballs and Fox

that, like this report, is horseshit.

[keopeli]

22. Yes, open information is good, I agree. And that's exactly why I added my caution.

Maybe the results of the Lewin Group's study are in your favor and help you promote your goal, but by citing them to defend yourself, you are giving them credibility when it's undeserved. Then, when they come out with another poll in two weeks that is very much NOT in your favor, it will be difficult for you to disagree with a credible source.

By the way, I never said I disagreed with your original premise about Health Insurance Reform. I do know of other studies to support Health Insurance Reform, but that would be preaching to the choir. Yes, I'm saying this study by the Lewin Group that said the public option would SAVE money is not to be believed because you never know when to believe a known liar. As for whether or not I prefer the CBO study, I prefer the one that's more likely to be true.

I hope that answered all your questions. Good luck out there...

[marmar]

14. Let's face it: Until the insurance companies are shown the door.....

..... we're always going to spend more for health care than we should. Another extension of the corporate lordship over this country.

[Becky72]

15. I still have hope

I wouldn't underestimate the feisty nature of many of our liberal lions in the House and Senate. They will fight till the end. Keep your fingers crossed.

[JohnWxy]

18. I don't have that confidence. That's why I have emailed several times and called my Senators and

my representative. If I had not done that, then when it fails, I would have wondered if my email or my phonecall just might have made a difference.

[JohnWxy]

16. Increased Growth in Medicare’s Low Administrative Costs Linked to Participation of Private Plans

When you hear somebody saying Medicare is an example of how the Government plan would be costly note the following:

from the report:


Increased Growth in Medicare’s Low Administrative Costs Linked to Participation of Private Plans

... Administrative costs in the Medicare program, for example, are estimated to account for 2 percent to 5 percent of premiums. Indeed, the Lewin Group estimates that covering everyone through the Medicare program could potentially reduce U.S. expenditures on administrative costs by $55 billion annually.

.... Between 2005 and 2006, however, Medicare’s annual administrative costs jumped from $12 billion to $20 billion, largely because of increased payments to cover the administrative costs of private health and drug plans participating in the program (Appendix Table 1).16 ___(pg 4)


Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission show that the administrative costs of the largest health insurance companies averaged from 13 percent to 18 percent of premium revenue in 2008. (pg 3)

~~~~~~~~


>> COSTS TO PROVIDERS (DOCTORS, HOSPITALS) NOT INCLUDED IN SAVINGS ESTIMATES__JW


Providers’ High Administrative Costs Stem from Interactions with Multiple Plans__(pg 4)

Because the costs of provider interactions with health plans are not explicitly accounted for in the national health expenditure accounts several recent studies have sought to determine how much time physicians and hospitals spend on such activities.

...... In a national survey of physician practices ...found that physicians spent an average of nearly three weeks per year on health-insurance-related activities—including prior authorization, pharmaceutical formularies, claims and billing, credentialing, contracting, and collecting and reporting quality data.

Nursing staff spent more than 23 weeks per physician per year interacting with health plans, and clerical staff spent 44 weeks. In converting time to dollars, Casalino et al. concluded that U.S. physician practices spent an average of $68,274 per physician per year interacting with health plans, or an estimated total of $31 billion annually

.... Across practices, physicians and their staffs spent relatively little administrative time on submitting their own quality data or reviewing health plans’ quality data.

.... clinicians spent more than 35 minutes per day performing billing and insurance-related tasks and that these activities also required the equivalent of 0.67 nonclinical full-time staff per full-time physician. The practice consequently incurred an annual cost of $85,276 per physician, representing 10 percent of operating revenue.

..... California hospitals spent 6.6 percent–10.8 percent of revenues on billing- and insurance-related transactions.

[JohnWxy]

17. some more: Cost of uninsured adds $1,100/year to premiums of insured families

that's about an 8% increase:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5321767