At the Moment, COST CONTROLS are More Important than a Public Option

[iceman66]

I don't see why so much attention is paid to the so-called 'public option', especially when the House bill contained a watered-down variant that would not even be available to anyone for at least 4 more years.

And that is the BEST alternative that is actually being considered by Congress.

We could get that, and the HCR bill would still be a failure in a practical sense if it did nothing to control costs between now and 2013.

Better to focus on things that are going to result in noticeable improvements in the system relatively quickly, such as the Rockefeller Amendment.

[grahamhgreen]

1. They will be as effective as the AIG regulations, i'm sure.

[Faryn Balyncd]

2. The 2 are related.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Dr. Dean Says There'll Be No Cost Controls Without Some Sort Of Public Option

Based on track record, I gotta go with Howard.

[Laelth]

6. +1

The insurance companies are a cabal. Without real competition (from the government), costs will continue to skyrocket.

:dem:

-Laelth

[iceman66]

7. A public option that does not kick in until 2013

is indistinguishable, in a practical sense, from no public option at all!

[MadHound]

4. Handing a mandated monopoly over to the insurance industry isn't going to keep costs down

In fact it will raise them even further. Whatever cost control measures that are in the bill will be circumvented much the same way that financial regulations and campaign finance reform are circumvented. Without a strong public option, one that provide real competition to the private sector all that we're left with is a wide open populace for the insurance industry to exploit.

Better to kill this bill and start over again.

[iceman66]

8. That really depends on what cost control measures are in the bill.

This issue hasn't gotten any real attention, with all the fuss over the PO.

Moreover, the PO that was proposed by the House, in addition to not being available for 4 years, would not provide any real competition to private insurance because it would only be open to such a small percentage of the populace.

I say better to pass a bill that even modestly lowers costs and curtails insurance industry abuses than nothing at all.

[MadHound]

9. Actually no, it doesn't depend on what cost control measures are in the bill

I guarantee you that right at this very minute that there are a few dozen very talented lawyers at work figuring out ways around whatever cost control measures are in the bill. I guarantee you that right at this very moment a few dozen lobbyists are getting checks cashed for large amounts, and that before the ink is dry from the president's signature those lobbyists will be up to their usual Washington tricks, finding representatives that will implement whatever plan is necessary to exploit those loopholes that the lawyers found.

If these cost control measures, whatever they are, go into effect immediately then you might have a few years of enjoying some slight savings on your insurance. If these cost controls go into effect in 2013, like much of the rest of the bill is timed for, then you will see no cost savings because those aforementioned loopholes will have had Mac trucks driven through them. Either way, within five years you will see your insurance rate go up, and continue going up. I've watched many other laws torn to shreds in this matter and that will be the fate of whatever cost control measures are in place.

[iceman66]

14. So we shouldn't even try?

You seem to be buying into the right-wing canard that the government can't do anything right.

[PassingFair]

25. No. We should be CLEAR.

This bill is NOT.

Public Option would have set
rates that insurance companies
would have had to compete with.

This bill is a give-away to the
insurance companies.

[HughMoran]

5. I agree

Cost is the number one problem. The PO was supposed to help by competing with the criminal insurance companies. But since the free market can't compete against a government entity, Republicans like Joe Lieberman opposed it since they hug insurance companies in their dreams.

[Captain Hilts]

10. A public option gives incentives for private insurers to lower costs. nt

[lamp_shade]

11. K&R

[Bonn1997]

12. You have a false dichotomy. A strong public option *is* a strong cost control.

[iceman66]

15. But its not the ONLY way to lower costs.

And where exactly is this 'strong public option' you speak of?

Again, the one in the House bill is heavily watered down and does not go into effect until 2013.

Are we to just let the insurance industry charge whatever they want for the next four years?

[Bonn1997]

24. OK, I was responding to the fact that your title suggests a dichotomy. Just like we wouldn't say

"humans are more important than women" (or than men)

[mmonk]

13. Expecting prices to go down with the insurance and pharmaceutical industry in control

is like expecting the financial system to get better with the financial industry in control. It is a fool's errand.

[iceman66]

17. You are describing the situation as it exists now!

The health care industry, like the financial markets, is largely unregulated.

Massive government oversight of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies might even be a better way of holding down costs than the vaunted public option, which is itself based on 'free market' principles.

Unfortunately, the so-called 'Democrats' in Congress are reluctant to even consider this to the extent necessary because they seem to have all bought in to years of right-wing bullshit propaganda that any sort of government regulation is to be avoided like the plague.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Ever explore the loopholes that always end up in supposedly progressive income tax laws?

Special interests win both coming and going. They insert loopholes in laws using lobbyist controlled legislaters who don't always even know the extent of the loopholes they are creating, then they game their books on the other end using the best financial charlatans money can buy to structure their books to maximize profits regardless of the original intent of regulations meant to constrain them.

Obama was right the first time. Real competition from the public sector is the only realistic way to drive down costs.

[iceman66]

18. But it is obvious that we're not going to get that from the current Congress.

Thus, we should be exploring other options.

That's all I'm trying to say.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I think the current Congress both can and should pursue a public alternative...

...using Reconciliation. They can pursue regulating the private industry through the conventional route as is now being done. Public alternatives are not deficit neutral, they bring down the national debt so they can be passed into law via Reconciliation which only requires 50 votes in the Senate plus Biden. I will hold the Democratic Party accountable if they fail to use the tools at hand that can bring about the results desired.

[iceman66]

21. Of course they SHOULD.

Hell, they SHOULD pass single-payer.

Unfortunately they have made it very clear that neither of those things are going to happen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. They haven't been forced to admit it. That can't be allowed to stand

They are using Lieberman's vote oncloture as an excuse to throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, we tried?. They are hiding behind Lieberman. Yes they have been upfront about not supporting a Single Payer system at this stage, but they are being duplicious about their stance on a public option and/or expanding Medicare to those 55 and older. They claim that they support those things but just can't manage it.

They are counting on the public not understanding that it is still very much in their power to deliver on those programs. If their cover of being "helpless" gets blown they might actually have to deliver afterall.

[iceman66]

23. It comes down to whether they want to deliver at all.

I guess a point I'm trying to make with this thread is that the 'public option' has become so politically charged that they should be looking at alternative measures to accomplish the same goal.

If you are correct, and the goal is to simply find an excuse to kill any meaningful reform, then we are really screwed.

[Umbral]

19. At the moment, dumping the public mandate is more important than Anything!

Unless the Democrats and Obama want to spend the last two years of his presidency accomplishing absolutely nothing! Except, of course, fighting the newly resurgent and empowered Republican contingent.

[grantcart]

26. There are no cost controls in the legislation that is the point

A couple of days ago they were talking about limiting the medical loss ratio to 85% (which I don't think will be effective) but that is no longer being discussed.