Breaking: Obama draws line in the sand on public option in New Weekly Address(Plus New good CBO#'s)

[Pirate Smile]

(FYI - Contact Info re Congress at the bottom of the OP)

I'm posting the actual quote up here so the lede isn't buried at the end:

President Obama:

That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family. And that’s why we’ll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry: no more yearly caps or lifetime caps; no more denying people care because of pre-existing conditions; and no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change jobs.

Edit to add - "YES!: CBO Final House Bill Score in-It Will YIELD SURPLUS!" - this info is added at the bottom. No more excuses for the Blue Dogs.

Breaking: Obama draws line in the sand on public option in New Weekly Address

by calchala
Share this on Twitter - Breaking: Obama draws line in the sand on public option in New Weekly Address Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:58:36 PM PDT
In Pres. Obama's weekly address he discusses the stakes of Healthcare Reform and Why the need is so urgent.

Obama on Healthcare Reform

Here's the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83FvLjsUOJg

calchala's diary :: ::
The President first details the players and some examples of individuals who are suffering right now.

Right now in Washington, our Senate and House of Representatives are both debating proposals for health insurance reform. Today, I want to speak with you about the stakes of this debate, for our people and for the future of our nation.

This is an issue that affects the health and financial well-being of every single American and the stability of our entire economy.

It’s about every family unable to keep up with soaring out of pocket costs and premiums rising three times faster than wages. Every worker afraid of losing health insurance if they lose their job, or change jobs. Everyone who’s worried that they may not be able to get insurance or change insurance if someone in their family has a pre-existing condition.

It’s about a woman in Colorado who told us that when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, her insurance company – the one she’d paid over $700 a month to – refused to pay for her treatment. She had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.

It’s about a man from Maryland who sent us his story – a middle class college graduate whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs. During that time, he needed emergency surgery, and woke up $10,000 in debt – debt that has left him unable to save, buy a home, or make a career change.

It’s about every business forced to shut their doors, or shed jobs, or ship them overseas. It’s about state governments overwhelmed by Medicaid, federal budgets consumed by Medicare, and deficits piling higher year after year.

This is the status quo. This is the system we have today. This is what the debate in Congress is all about: Whether we’ll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under, and more Americans lose their coverage. Or whether we’ll seize this opportunity – one we might not have again for generations – and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009.

The President then lays down the hammer on his critics and derides those who would do "nothing" in the name of reform. The President also makes a commitment that he will NOT sign any bill that doesn't bring down costs or isn't deficit neutral over 10 years.

First, the same folks who controlled the White House and Congress for the past eight years as we ran up record deficits will argue – believe it or not – that health reform will lead to record deficits. That’s simply not true. Our proposals cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending and unwarranted giveaways to insurance companies in Medicare and Medicaid. They change incentives so providers will give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care, which will mean big savings over time. And we have urged Congress to include a proposal for a standing commission of doctors and medical experts to oversee cost-saving measures.

In terms of the public option, the President reiterates his support but doesn't believe that the government "can or should run healthcare" but he wants to keep "insurance companies honest."

Finally, opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care. That’s not true either. I don’t believe that government can or should run health care. But I also don’t think insurance companies should have free reign to do as they please.

That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family. And that’s why we’ll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry: no more yearly caps or lifetime caps; no more denying people care because of pre-existing conditions; and no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change jobs.

The President concludes, urging Congress to pass this bill as soon as possible.

UPDATE: According to folks below, Obama has drawn a line in the sand on the public option in this address. It certainly is the strongest I've seen, but I'll leave it to others to make a judgment call on this issue.

UPDATE II: Apparently the White House is not backing down from engaging in ads with the democrats. A new round of ads are targeting HOUSE democrats (Probably Blue Dogs) and the ad will be posted once found.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/18/754815/-Breaking:-Obama-draws-line-in-the-sand-on-public-option-in-New-Weekly-Address

Edit to add Congressional Contact Info AND Info re where they stand on a Public Option - so you can check on your Congressperson and Senators.

Where Congress Stands
Want to know where Congress stands on the public option?

It's time to get your senators on the record. Email four simple questions to your senators right now.

Senator responses to each specific question are posted here.

In addition to your emails, Democracy for America members and our partners have made calls to Congress and reported back the results to Stand With Dr. Dean. We have compiled the reports from those calls and combed through public statements of every member of Congress. Based on a complete review of your reports and our research, the grid below lists every member of Congress and their basic position on the inclusion of a public healthcare option.


Chamber Yes No Don't know
House 197 6 237
Senate 37 40 22
Combined 234 46 259


http://standwithdrdean.com/where_congress_stands

edit 2:

YES!: CBO Final House Bill Score in-It Will YIELD SURPLUS!

by pronin2
Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:07:41 PM PDT

Just got this important news from the tri cmte press folks. The final CBO score of the House healthcare bill was completed tonight. Very good news here after such a bad day of it. The bill scores deficit neutral and in fact will produce a SURPLUS in funds. That is right. While MSM and the Blue Cross Dems have used an incomplete report claiming the bill would be financially perilious tonight CBO confirms that in sum this bill will be the opposite.

Spread the word to MSM and the Blue Cross dems. Fiscally this House bill is sound and will yeild a surplus. There is no excuse for the Blue Dogs in Congress to kill this based on alleged "fiscal irresponsibility." None.

Press release in full below with link....

pronin2's diary :: ::

Happy Friday night all! CBO has released its score of the House health reform bill. Below is the text of the tri-committee's press release:

For Immediate Release:
Energy & Commerce Contact: ******[phone]
Ways & Means Contact: ******[phone]
Education and Labor Contact: ****[phone]

July 17, 2009

CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill

Washington, D.C. -- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.

Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion, coupled with the $583 billion revenue package reported today by the House Committee on Ways and Means, fully finance the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform, which will provide affordable health care coverage for 97% of Americans.

"This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis," said Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and Chairman George Miller. "The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in a fiscally-responsible manner."

The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the "donut" hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory "pay go" legislation that is pending in the House.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/18/754836/-YES!:-CBO-Final-House-Bill-Score-in-It-Will-YIELD-SURPLUS!

[John Q. Citizen]

1. He wants to "Keep insurance companies honest?" That assumes they are honest now. But they are crooks

How does Obama intend to reform the crooked insurance companies so he can then, after they have reformed, be kept honest?

Easier to just cut out the middle men. Faster and cheaper too.

[Divine Discontent]

6. I think this is Mr Obama's way of getting them to be screwn over by us, but still letting them think

that they have a leg to stand on... I like his idea if I understand it right - I would match rather be a part of a govt or state insurance plan than giving Aetna/Cigna/BCBS/United Healthcare any profit. Of course, from what I understand also, all employers must provide insurance to those who work - do I understand that right folks?

Regardless, I believe most people will tell the insurance companies to hit the road!

I think him commenting on his weekly address about this, signifies he definitely will stick with the public-option option!

[John Q. Citizen]

18. He took a lot of cash from them last election so I'm not so confident as you are that he

wants them out. Who is going to make up that cash?

[high density]

25. I don't see any proof that Obama is owned or feel he owes something to the insurance companies

And his address this week seems to make that clear. If he was owned as you infer, he wouldn't even be going down this road to begin with. He is aware though that the dream plans voiced here of single payer are not going to fly politically at all. He does not want to force people to give up their current coverage.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. the fact that Obama is so afraid of the very idea of single payer that cut advocates out of the

debate from the start speak volumes to me.

There are many, many, proposals about health care in congress right now.

Yet the only group specifically barred from participation in the debate has been medical experts in favor of single payer.


When Obama held his conferences, he invited people who are absolutely and completely opposed to a public option. They got to present their argument. He invited people who don't want any changes, they got to present thier case. No, the only group left out is the group who represents what the majority of Americans want - The single payer experts.

If you don't find that curious, then I'm surprised.


Obamna needs to ask people if they want to give up their current coverage instead of assuming that they want their health care decisions made by leaches. But he won't ask that question because he knows he won't like the answer.

[high density]

34. ABC hosted that talk

So I think you'll want to talk about them about who was there and proposing questions to Obama.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. I'm refering to the White House Summit on health care., last March. I'm also referring

to the meeting around the country organized by the Obama transition team where they somehow failed to quantify how many people spoke up in favor of single payer. They quantified all sorts of other things, but forgot to tell us whay people had to say about single payer.

If it's not obvious to you, it's because you don't want to know.

It's obvious to everyone else though.

[high density]

40. Obama said he doesn't want to take away people's current plans

That is why you will never see him as a proponent of a single payer plan. It's as simple as that. I don't know why he should be expected to present the single payer argument at every hearing or conference when he has already ruled that out and given the reason why. The right wingers whine that this public option may mean that employers stop offering their own plans, but that could happen even if we do nothing.

So once you stop ignoring what Obama has actually been saying, maybe you can get your expectations aligned with the possible options that will be available going forward.

[Better Believe It]

41. How about offering them the public plan as an option?

[John Q. Citizen]

49. He made a campaign promise to consider all ideas, regardless of ideology. He lied.

He won't ask if people want to keep their shitty insurance that won't pay because he's afraid that they might not want to.

You can pretend whatever you want but it's not fooling anyone except you. You take what the insurance industry lets you have if that's what you want.

I'm not a slave and I won't act like one. You just take what they give you, that's fine with me. Maybe your insurance company masters will will let you see a doctor sometime if you are lucky.

[Political Heretic]

69. Considering "all ideas" has always meant "everything from center to right" in modern US politics.

Nothing new here... nothing, erm, "changed."

[northernlights]

21. No it does not, you are reading the letter instead of the spirit of the message

It forces them to be honest -- and keeps them there -- because otherwise, everybody will simply move to the public option.

Personally, I prefer single payer because "insurance" adds no value, it simply sucks away the health care $$ into some fat CEOs wallet. But that's not going to happen overnight.

And public option is the 1st step toward single payer. Once enough people dump the insurance industry and enough 'boomers' reach medicare age, they'll be forced to find some other business altogether. Hopefully something useful.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. I'm not as certain of those assumptions as you are. I'm for single payer because we know it works

well. It's been done many times many places with excellent results.

I see the whole "public option" as a way to try to get people to stop asking for what they want, which is single payer.

Think about it. Why were the single payer advocates cut out of the debate before the debate even started? it was cooked up in some back room last November and that's been the situation ever since.

The only reason single payer isn't going to happen overnight is because too many people are making too much money ripping us off and they don't want their gravy train to end.

That goes for politicians from both parties and also for the insurance companies who, it should be remembered, get an automatic seat at the table.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. I'm for single payer

but it won't happen overnight

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Single payer was introduced in the congress in 1945. So i don't expect it to happen overnight

The public option is a way to forestall it from happening though. It's not a way to propel it to happen.

We could have a single payer system pretty quick if we quit screwing around with methods to keep it from happening and just did it. The public will is there, but the powers that be don't want to stop ripping us off.

[Odin2005]

65. You are being paranoid.

[John Q. Citizen]

73. i disagree.

If I were paranoid, I would think that someone was out to get me. but i don't think that.

Instead, I went to my Obama transition team meeting on health care and I read their report on the health care meetings nation wide, and it became quite clear that the decisions on health care Democratic leaders were making were all driven from the top down, not from the bottom up. And the conclusions were already in all of their literature and in their rhetoric. For instance I read Max Baucus' white paper on reforming health care which i got at one of the Obama transition teams so called "listening" meetings on health care

If you have read the transition teams report you would realize that no where in the report do they even bother to quantify how many people across the country stood up and asked for single payer as their reform of choice. Sure they mention that some did, but the fact they failed to count how many did is strange, given they quantified damn near everything else about those meetings. Have you read the report? You can get it online for free.

My own Senator Max Baucus gave interviews last December where he stated that Americans don't want single payer. Then our local newspaper, The Missoulian, did a series of articles on health care reform. Their reporter went to 4 of the transition team health care meetings at random held in 4 parts of the state and at 3 meetings the people voted with a show of hands and were overwhelmingly in support of single payer. At the 4th meeting it was unclear as to the extent of support because there was no vote held, but the reporter said that at that meeting lots of people said they favored single payer.

If you look at the SEIU Union, their President Andy Stern is a close insider of the Obama White House. Even though his union has endorsed single payer at the local level and the regional level, Stern says nothing about single payer. it's not supposed to be discussed.

I'm not sure what effort you have under taken your self in the hearth care reform movement. i've been very active. I happened to be in DC a couple of weeks ago when the giant rally was held in front of the capital, and i also went to both of my senators offices in the Hart Senate Building and i lobbied their staffs on single payer.

I haven't seen you post a lot here on health care before.

[Joe Bacon]

31. The health insurance racketeers are parasites!

Here's a way to reduce costs! NOBODY who works in the health insurance rackets should be paid more than 75% of the salary of the President of the United States! If they can't live on 300,000 a year, SCREW THEM! No more hundred million dollar salaries. megabonuses or stock options!

[backscatter712]

2. YES!!!

He said in this address that any plan he signs into law must have an exchange with a public option!

About time he started putting the screws to the DINOs!!!

And the news that Organizing For America's going to run more ads targeting conservadems' states and districts is damned good news. Attack ads in a congresscritter's district or state make the fucker pull their hair out real fast! :evilgrin:

[MannyGoldstein]

3. I Hope You're Right, But...

There's nothing that prevents it from being a pathetic public option - say, only available to some small segment of people. Given Obama's vigorous backpeddling to date on so many fronts, that's a very real possibility.

[Thrill]

5. Well fucking Congress has to do something

He's the only Democrat out there even fighting for it. Its up to the Democrats we sent up there to make the public option strong

[Hutzpa]

14. Debbie Downer n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Sorry, Just Managing Expectations

As in "Obama has promised to stop illegal surveillence, so he just re-affirmed Bush's claim that warrantless wiretapping is legal and keeps doing it - see, he kept his promise".

[high density]

27. It's also possible that aliens will come and give us free healthcare on their mothership

Your speculation is as valid as Bill Kristol's. Thanks for your concern.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. No - It's Based On Actual Evidence

Call me when, say, Obama repeals DADT as one of the first things he does as president, as he said he'd do. Instead we've gotten his vague calls for the LGBT community to be treated better, and a DOJ brief comparing gay marriage with incest.

Or when he has a transparent government. Or when he reforms banking regulation. Or when he works as hard for the middle class as for the bankers. Or when he ends warrantless wiretapping. Or prosecutes war crimes. Etc.

I hope that things work out for the best - but I'm not seeing any signs of it, yet.

[Baltoman991]

45. Same old Same old

More blaming it all on Obama I see. Still refuse to put the blame where it lies and thats with the assholes in Congress sitting there doing nothing but collecting tax payers money.

I guess if he just bypassed Congress your next post could be how he's just like George Bush and ignoring Congress.

Really, the man can't do shit right in your eyes.

[Cha]

56. Because it feels good to

call Pres Obama "a liar"..even though it says everything about them and nothing about the Prez.

[Political Heretic]

70. Based on everything we've seen, I'd say it's likely.

I want to be wrong.

[HopeOverFear]

4. AWESOME!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

7. Time to fight!

Time to win the battle that could eventually win our right to health care started as invisioned under Truman.....

[DarthDem]

8. Sweet

Love the surplus part coming out of the final CBO numbers. I am SO SICK of the Blue Dogs. What the hell is motivating them? Can they really think that obstructing this is going to do the country, or even themselves, any good?

The President is going to fight for this. I feel very good about that.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Excellent! Now they need to get some ads out to counter all the negative ones out there. nt

[ipaint]

10. It was strongly suggested to the CBO's the numbers be positive

by baucus.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/sen_baucus_wants_cb.php

Sen. Baucus: My judgement is that you got the whole new era - you might be Moses, but not God - but you got the whole new era… where as I said earlier it’s not too much of an overstatement to say CBO can make or break health care reform, and I mean that because we got to go by your numbers…

Dr. Elmendorf: Senator, may I respectfully disagree that…

Sen. Baucus: I do believe that there are several different intellectually honest pathways to get from here to there. It’s not just one automatic, and so it needs - you got to be ever more creative to find intellectually honest pathways to get the savings we have to have - practically and both politically - to get health care reform.

Dr. Elmendorf: Senator, I would like to just respectfully disagree with the make or break role that you have assigned to us. We will do our very best to provide you and all of the members of this committee and the rest of the members of the Congress with the technical information that you need, the best estimates that the knowledge of the world can provide about the effects of alternative policies, but, as you understand, the hard decisions will be yours.

Sen. Baucus: No, that’s incorrect. The hard decisions will be all ours, both of us, you and me. You can’t pass the buck. The hard decisions are here, and the hard decisions are yours and the hard decisions are all of us in this country in trying to make this work. Meeting’s adjourned.

[drm604]

11. So all the recent media negativity was based on an incomplete CBO report?

I'm sure that they'll cover this final report just as enthusiastically. :sarcasm:

[SeeHopeWin]

12. excellent...

[Wednesdays]

13. K&R

:kick:

[Beetwasher]

15. OBAMA UNLEASHED!! Hot Damn! No More Dry Powder! Spending That Political Capital!!!

Repubs will not know what hit them, nor will any Dems standing in the way of progress.

He's pissed and he's moving.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Fake Democrat(s) will not like this one bit.

[karynnj]

17. Very good news ... and great post

Some of what he said at the top of your post was what he said in NJ when he was here Thursday for Corzine. It looks like he may do a repeat of the media blitz that was so effective with the stimulus.

The Dean list that you included shows the amount of work that needs to be done. Obama and others really have to win over a fair number of the "don't know" Senators. (One of whom he let retain his chairmanship.)

I like the fact that he is forcing them to provide information so people can more easily compare plans. This is far harder than it sounds - my husband and I spent hours comparing the plan his employer provided with the one the company I retired from provided to determine the one that was best for our family.

[Better Believe It]

20. President Obama's statement indicating you or your employer can choose the public option is false

It won't be like picking out your favorite fruit at the best price in a super market.

President Obama in his radio address said: "any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family."

That's at best misleading and is not factually correct. You or your employer can't just shop around at the insurance exchange and pick the public option if that's the best deal for your family.

If the employer has 10 employees or fewer they may qualify for the public insurance option sometime in 2013, but not before.

If the employer has 20 employees or fewer they may qualify the public insurance option sometime in 2014, but not before.

If the employer has more than 20 employees they may be able to get the public insurance option for their workers until sometime in 2015, if approved by "the commissioner". However, there is nothing in the legislation mandating such approval or requiring the government to make the public insurance option available to all employers for their workers at any time in the future.

------------------------------

For many workers, insurance choices may be limited after health care overhaul
BY MARY AGNES CAREY AND JULIE APPLEBY
17 July 2009


President Obama and leading Democrats have stressed that people who like their employer-sponsored insurance would be able to keep it, under a health care overhaul. But they haven't emphasized the flip side: That people who don't like their coverage might have to keep it.

Under the main health bills being debated in Congress, many people with job-based insurance could find it difficult to impossible to switch to health plans on a new insurance exchange, even if the plans there were cheaper or offered better coverage. The restrictions extend to any government-run plan, which would be offered on the exchange.

Democratic lawmakers and administration officials say the restrictions are critical to maintaining a strong employer-based insurance system, which covers 158 million Americans.

But critics argue that the rules run counter to suggestions from health care reform advocates that an overhaul could provide people with a broader choice of insurance options. The rules, they say, could be especially unfair to some lower-income workers who are enrolled in costly job-based insurance. Also, they argue, the restrictions would hurt the proposed public plan by limiting enrollment.

Jonathan Oberlander, associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the restrictions create a "big gap between the rhetoric and the reality" of health reform. "The rhetoric is that Americans will gain new alternatives," he said. "But the reality is that they are putting up firewalls that are going to restrict the access of people with employer-sponsored insurance to the exchange."

One result, he said, is that any public plan would be substantially smaller than what many backers are envisioning. That would reduce the public plan's power to compete with private insurers and hold down costs, he said. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nine million to 10 million people would enroll in the public plan by 2019.


Please read the complete article at:

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/healthquest/for-many-workers-insurance-choices-may-be-limited-after-health-care-overhaul

-----------------------------------------

"Public Option" Would Only Be Available To The Otherwise Uninsured
TPM Cafe
July 16, 2009

I'm not sure that people really understand how the "public option" would work, given the rhetoric of the adminstration that people could "keep" their current insurance if they want to or choose a public option.

Last night on The Daily Show, Secretary Sebelius, in response to a question, made things a bit clearer regarding just how the public option would work. She was asked "who would choose" whether or not to use the public option: the employee or the employer? The Secretary said essentially it would be the choice of the employer because if the employer provides health insurance then that is the insurance the employee would have to use. Only if the employer chose not to provide health insurance would the employee be able to enroll in the public option.

Most of the people I know that have employer provided health insurance are glad they have insurance as opposed to not having it, but they hate the plans they have because the expense is totally unreasonable and with each passing year, less and less coverage is provided while costs go up. So, leaving the choice to employers is not the same as providing choice to citizens at all.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oleeb/2009/07/public-option-would-only-be-av.php?ref=reccafe

-------------------------------------

It appears that the "public plan" may not kick in for employers with more than 20 employees unless "the Commissioner" permits larger employers to join the public plan in 2015!

And congressional aides say only about 9 million will be insured by public plan by 2019! 21 million will be insured by private companies in the exchange by 2019. Another 164 million would be insured with private insurance through their employers.


----------------------------------

The Health Insurance Exchange: It's run nationally, though states can opt out of the national structure and go it alone if they choose, and if they follow federal rules. In the first year, it accepts those without health insurance, those who are buying health insurance on their own, and small businesses with fewer than 10 people. In the second year, it accepts small businesses with fewer than 20 people. After that, "larger employers as permitted by the Commissioner." In other words, expansion is discretionary, not mandated. The only people able to access the public plan in the early years will be on the exchange, and the exchange will be, relative to the population, pretty limited. So the public plan will be limited, and so too will any anticipated savings.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_house_releases_its_health-.html?hpid=news-col-blog

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE56D7JX20090714

[karynnj]

28. I read that and I think it is a reasonable start

I have employer provider insurance that I feel fortunate to have. Even if the public option is better, the difference is marginal compared to people who have no insurance at all.

What this plan will do is provide insurance to those who are not as lucky as I am. In addition, it will be there - rather than COBRA - for people who lose their insurance because they lose their jobs.

I think we are looking at this from different prospectives - I see a plan that will mend a giant hole in the safety net and help many many people who need it. Would medicare for all be better? I think so, but I know it is impossible. They are having a hard time getting even this - if they do - out of Congress. You seem to be more intent in looking at what it doesn't do, rather than the good it does.

[Better Believe It]

32. How about a public option that employers and individuals can easily sign up for?

According to congressional aides only 9 to 10 million people will have the public option in a decade, 2019, and the rest of us will be required to have private health insurance or be fined!

That's just doesn't seem right to me and it appears like a huge multi-billion dollar handout to the insurance industry.

If a public plan can't provide better benefits at a lower cost than private health insurance why in world would anyone want it?

And if a public plan can provide better benefits at a lower cost than private health insurance why in the world can't we opt for it?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. We need campaign finance reform. This is probably the best deal the president could get

because the Blue Dogs and the DLCers are working with Republicans to obstruct anything better.

This is going to be incremental change. But it's a start and it's 100 times better than what the Blue Dogs/DLCers/Repukes could ever do.

There will be further changes in the future, but let's face it, the corporatists have enough money to play this game.

Until Americans change their negative attitudes towards the government, we will never have a single payer system.

And until we get campaign finance reform, we will never have a single payer system in this country.

And until we get rid of the Blue Dogs and all these fake Democrats, we will never have a single payer system in this country.

These facts sadden me greatly, but this is the society we live in right now.

Though I'm disillusioned with a lot of his decisions so far, I stand with the president on this one.

[Better Believe It]

39. You will learn to accept a lot less than the current House proposal

And you'll be grateful for a few crumbs that might be thrown your way.

I won't.

Just wait until the final House proposal is further weakened by the Senate when they meet in conference with the House.

It's highly unlikely that the final bill will provide "affordable" universal health care and a meaningful public option.

And we don't even know for sure that an incredibly weak bill will even pass this Congress!

However, if such a bill passes it could hardly be called "incremental change" since the next step toward change may not occur for a century or two because of Wall Street/corporate control of Washington. The "corporatists have enough money to play this game" at least until the beginning of the 22nd century unless you think we'll no longer have a capitalist economy.

The proposed step toward universal private health insurance coverage will certainly help the insurance industry with millions of new customers,(don't pay much attention to their mandatory crocodile tears) but it just won't do much for the rest of us.

The poorest of the poor will get the cheapest of the four public option plans offered, which might be a bit better than the emergency ward at a hospital.

Perhaps the Obama administration should have started out demanding a Medicare for All healthcare reform and than "compromised" down to a meaningful public option.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. WOW!! You're condescending, aren't you? Obama cannot do this himself; it's the Congress

that passes the laws. And there are members of the Congress who are well taken care of by special, monied interests.

People have unrealistic expectations about what can get done and how fast we can progress.

[Better Believe It]

51. So who won the 2008 elections? The Republicans?

I suppose you also think that Obama needs to get 60 Senate votes in order to get legislation and appointments approved by Congress.

Now let me hear the old familiar whine .... "the Republicans might threaten a filibuster if we don't cave in to them".

Is that right?

So you believe that the only realistic thing we can win with a Democratic controlled House and Senate is mandatory private health insurance and a weak public option that won't be available to most individuals and employers.

That's not the kind of change people voted for.

In fact, it seems regressive rather than progressive.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. You're wrongly and rather naiively assume that all Dems are

on board and will do the right thing. We need to get the Blue Dogs and DLCers to vote with Obama's plan. Since that won't happen we cannot expect a progressive outcome. Rather than attack me personality, you should accept the reality and work to change it! Get the Blue Dogs out or take away their influence in politics and policy. How can you disagree with that?

[ipaint]

54. I'm assuming your one of the 8 and half million folks

who won't be insured in 2019 under this plan, right. What's acceptable to do to them should be acceptable done to you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

75. See my response above. Actually I work for the Feds so I am fortunate to

Be in this position. I'm merely pointing out the political reality. Until we change the system this is what we have to endure. Let's work to change the system from within!!

[solstice]

19. Lines in the sand are EASILY washed away.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

29. We want the President to support a strong public option for everyone and without loopholes.

Is that wrong?

[high density]

24. This is the guy I voted for!!!

I like the tone in this address.

[slipslidingaway]

42. CBO link - not quite the final score...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

http://jct.gov/
http://jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3572

"Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of H.R. 3200, the America’s
Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced on July 14, 2009. This
analysis does not reflect any modifications or amendments made after that date.
Among other things, the legislation would establish a mandate for legal residents to
obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which some
individuals and families could receive subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of
purchasing insurance; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; make
modifications to the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and impose an income-tax
surcharge on high-income individuals.

CBO’s and JCT’s preliminary assessment of the impact on the federal deficit for the
bill as introduced is summarized in the following table...


...According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage
provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO
estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions
that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years...

...It is important to note that the figures presented here do not represent a complete
cost estimate for the coverage provisions of the legislation. They reflect
specifications provided by the committee staff rather than detailed analysis of the
legislative language. They do not include certain costs that the government would
incur to administer the proposed changes and the impact of the bill’s provisions on
other federal programs. Nevertheless, the estimates reflect the major net budgetary
effects of H.R. 3200...


Effects of the Key Provisions of H.R. 3200

The legislation would establish a mandate to have health insurance, expand
eligibility for Medicaid, and establish new health insurance exchanges through
which some people could purchase subsidized coverage. The options available in
the insurance exchange would include private health insurance plans as well as a
public plan that would be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. The specifications would also require payments of penalties by uninsured
individuals, firms that did not provide qualified health insurance, and other firms
whose employees would receive subsidized coverage through the exchanges. The
plan would also provide tax credits to small employers that contribute toward the
cost of health insurance for their workers.

Collectively, those provisions would yield a significant increase in the number of
Americans with health insurance. By 2019, CBO and the staff of JCT estimate, the
number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about
37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of
whom would be unauthorized immigrants). In total, CBO estimates that enacting
those provisions would raise deficits by $1,042 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

Other provisions of the bill would alter spending under the Medicare, Medicaid,
Children’s Health Insurance, and other federal health programs. H.R. 3200 would
make numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs. In
total, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would reduce direct spending by
$219 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That result is the net effect of provisions
that would reduce spending and others that would increase spending.

The provisions that would result in the largest savings include:

....I hope this preliminary analysis is helpful in your consideration of the America’s
Affordable Health Choices Act. If you have any questions, please contact me or
CBO staff. The primary staff contacts for this analysis are Philip Ellis and Holly
Harvey."

[Pirate Smile]

46. I saw the confusion re the press release, etc. and the Diaries on DK but I believe

that including the Medicare fix, the numbers are essentially correct.

It is way too late to be able to edit to add those details. I still take it as good news. :)

[slipslidingaway]

52. The Kos link does not work for me and I scrolled through the diaries

but still cannot find it, if you have a chance would you check the link and post it again?

TIA

Other concerns are that it still leaves many without insurance, CBO link says approx 17 million (half unauthorized immigrants) and that access to the public option might not be universal.

Something I've posted several times is that next year the number of enrollees to Medicare begins to climb, from 46 million to 79 million over the next 2 decades, and I do not see how we can use proposed Medicare savings to fund the public option?

Plus I am not a fan of using tax payer dollars to subsidize the purchase of private insurance.

[slipslidingaway]

66. The Kos diary was deleted n/t

[ipaint]

48. Would it be that difficult to craft a plan

that in ten years doesn't leave 8 and half million americans with nothing. I guarantee these folks aren't middle class or above and we know the poor get medicaid, so who are they??

[slipslidingaway]

53. No, it would be easier to craft a plan that includes everybody...

who are they?

Not exactly sure, just some will fall through the cracks.

:(

[HopeOverFear]

43. See all the naysayers in this post talking shit? That means we're close.

Right before a victory, the negative asshats always come out try to discourage and divide.

[Better Believe It]

47. Please present some information disputing the facts presented in the post:

"President Obama's statement indicating you or your employer can choose the public option is false."

I haven't seen anything posted yet that challenges the facts presented in that post.

Can you produce something or would you rather hurl insults?

[HopeOverFear]

44. HERE'S THE VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83FvLjsUOJg&feature=player_embedded

[Shireling]

55. It gives me hope.

A good beginning.

[MasonJar]

57. If Obama signs any plan without a strong public option, I will work hard

to see he is not re-elected. If he stands tall for a public option that has substance and vitality, I will work just as hard for his re-election, assuming of course that he does not screw us over on the environment, which is and has been for many years my most important issue. (I was for Al Gore back when he first ran against Clinton, before he became VP.) I have no reason to believe that Obama will not eventually become a sound environmental president, even though I do not like his selection of Vilsak and Salazaar nor their actions so far (as with the Yellowstone wolves and the Tongass and mountaintop removal coal mining.) These atrocious decisions are adding up fast in my black book, and it has only been a few months. I am assuming that some essential GOOD environmental policies are just around the corner, not that these subsequent programs will help the wolves that die due to the change brought about by the Obama administration's unbelievable dismantling of protections left in place by GWB, the worst environmental president in history, or the citizens whose lands and streams are filled with sludge thrown over the hillside by coal mine owners, whose number one agenda is saving themselves money, or the many species which exist in the Tongass National Forest, and I do stress NATIONAL, because it has not yet spoiled by the American government. These are not changes I can believe in. So I do put a plus by Obama's name for today's address on health care, and I await further decisions of merit with anticipation so that I may place more pluses in my little book in the future, especially in the sections set aside for global warming and the environment.

[bertman]

58. Many thanks to all who have posted regarding the actual CONTENT of the reform bill.

I must admit that I started getting a bit worried when President Obama began issuing deadlines for passing this legislation. Considering that the biggest players in shaping this "reform" have been those who have the most to lose (insurance companies, big pharma), it appeared that there was a desire to pass something that sounded like reform even if it did not smell like reform.

The more info I get about this legislation, the more it seems like the "compromises" that are being made are working against a meaningful public option.

Seems to me, at this point, President Obama is pushing to get SOMETHING passed, even if it's marginal, just to make it look like a victory.

[Faryn Balyncd]

59. But HR3200 turns the "public option" into a LOW INCOME plan with LIMITED physician participation....

HR 5200 is NOT a public option that all Americans can choose.


It is NOT a public option that will have widespread physician participation.


HR 5200 mandates that individual BUY INSURANCE, but NOT that providers participate in the "public option", and it prevents many struggling middle class Americans from choosing the "public option", which is means tested. One must have an income less than 4xFPL to be eligible for the "public option" (that is, for a family of 2 less than 14,570 x 4 = $58,160).


The AMA only signed on to the plan that allows physicians to NOT participate, and which REQUIRES all Americans to buy insurance, or face a fine of 2.5% of income, even if they cannont afford any offered insurance.


HR 3200 is a con ------- HR 3200 is special interest legislation dressed up with the rhetoric of "public option".


HR 3200 is a guarantee that the "public option" will become a low-income-only plan with LIMITED physician/provider participation, coupled with a mandate that everyone purchase insurance....... HR 3200 will give official sanction to the concept of TWO TIERED medical care. And the same lobbyists who have hijacked public option don't want to stop there.....These lobbyists want to PRIVATIZE MEDICARE, and create a two-tiered system for all Americans.


Some public option.

[Eric J in MN]

61. My interpretation is that people need to be at 4x-poverty-level or less..

...to get subsidies for the public option, but that they can join without subsidies if they're self-employed or their employer doesn't provide health insurance.

[Faryn Balyncd]

72. Looks like you are correct. My apologies.

(I certainly hope your interpretation is correct, and it appears it is. I hope it holds up through House, senate, and committee.)

[Political Heretic]

68. I believe that is an incorrect reading of the bill.

people 400% of the poverty line and below can get a subsidy for insurance, and choose to use that subsidy on the public option. People above 400% of the poverty line must pay for insurance coverage, and can choose the public option.

However, I could be wrong - what you're suggesting sounds a lot more like what would come out of fucked up Washington.

[Faryn Balyncd]

71. Looks like you are correct.

(I hope so.)

[Eric J in MN]

60. It's an optimistic reading of his remarks that he'll veto if there isn't a pubic option.

"That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family."

Taken literally, that means he won't sign a bill without a public option.

But the emphasis of the conditional is on there being an "insurance exchange."

I'm expecting him to sign any bill which he can call "health care reform" and run on in 2012, whether or not there is a public option.

[MindMatter]

62. Obama is taking all the fun out of being a health insurance company

[David Zephyr]

63. I hope he means it. If he does, he will transform the country.

Hoping.

[Odin2005]

64. The Big Guns are out tonight!

[Political Heretic]

67. "insurance exchange" are waffle words.

Until he says, "I will veto any bill that does not contain a strong public option," we have more work to do.

And before anyone starts going off about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, SINGLE PAYER IS WHAT AMERICANS NEED AND WHAT AMERICANS DESERVE but a strong public option is the bare minimum that we should accept.


EDIT - let me be clear. I think public activism and pressure on washington has given the President the backing he needs to take strong stances. Thumbs up to the strong address, in it he implied he wouldn't sign a bill without an exchange that includes a public option. That's great news. Lest someone mistake this post for "hate," my point is we need to keep pushing hard.

I don't think we get what we need because one man is so "great." I think we get what we need when the people fight hard for what they want, and give good men and women the support against overwhelming opposing interests.