CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– HEALTH
June 4, 2009 – 12:45 p.m.
Blue Dogs Demand Tight Constraints on Any Public Health Plan Option
By Alex Wayne, CQ Staff
Conservative House Democrats set strict conditions Thursday for any government-run insurance plan Congress creates as part of a health care overhaul, ruling out support for a plan that resembles Medicare — the option favored by many liberals.
The lines drawn by the Blue Dog Coalition, if adhered to by lawmakers crafting the health overhaul, would result in a government-run plan that works much like private insurance plans.
“How a public option is constructed and allowed to compete are critically important to ensuring families have the ability to keep their current health coverage and continue to see the doctor of their choice,” the Blue Dogs said .
Their manifesto complicates an already difficult task for Democratic bill drafters and the party leadership.
A government-run insurance plan, which Democrats call a “public plan option,” is the biggest issue dividing Republicans and Democrats in this year’s health care debate. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose the idea. Many Democrats say it is vital to ensure real competition by private insurers and reduce health costs. President Obama sent a letter to senior Senate Democrats on Wednesday strongly endorsing a public plan, but without specifying how it should be structured.
Details are important; a public plan could operate like Medicare, dictating prices to health providers and undercutting private insurers, or it might be constructed to operate more like a private insurance plan, in which payment rates are negotiated with providers.
Lawmakers might open the plan to every American or only to those without employer-sponsored insurance. Some lawmakers are discussing including a “trigger,” in which the public plan would begin operating only if a set of conditions are met, such as a lack of affordable private insurance plans in a given geographic area.
It is not clear whether Republicans would support a public plan even with a host of restrictions — or if liberals would support a bill with the kind of restrictions demanded by the Blue Dogs.
Among their requirements: The public plan must negotiate payment rates with providers; participation in the plan must be voluntary for both providers and patients; premiums and copayments under the plan must pay for its operations; and the plan must follow the same actuarial standards and regulations required of private insurers.
Some conservative health policy experts have questioned whether it makes sense for the government to create a public plan that essentially replicates plans offered by private insurers. A public plan would draw most of its cost-cutting power from its ability to dictate prices, like Medicare, these experts argue; without that ability, it might save the government and consumers little or no money.
Politically, the Blue Dogs’ document sets the coalition’s 51 members squarely at odds with a group of 78 liberals in the House who have cosponsored legislation (
Conyers and his cosponsors represent a base of adamant supporters for a strong, Medicare-like public plan. House Democratic leaders will have to somehow reconcile the two blocs in order to pass any health care overhaul measure.
Comments
This is a stupid argument. Both the public health option and the private option SHOULD BE BOUND BY THE SAME RULES--THAT THOSE WHO KEEP THE PATIENTS THEY HAVE HEALTHIER ARE REWARDED. How can that be unfair to either option? Both private and Medicare now are rewarded for keeping people sick, for performing procedures, prescribing medications. The plans that should get whatever governmental benefits, perks, rewards--however you want to describe it--should be those that, given their patient population, including preexisting conditions, show IMPROVING patient health (maybe by participating in healthcare plan options like exercise programs, eating healthy programs, preventative healthcare checkups). However they can innovate to make people DEMONSTRABLY HEALTHIER (obviously besides just denying care and saying it's health) SHOULD BE REWARDED. This is an absurd argument by both sides. I live on an island where there are NO PRIVATE PLANS and none who will be moving here any time soon. It is rural medicine all the way, so government programs are the only ones REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED in underserved areas. I don't expect that will change anytime soon, so I can see that only a government option will make sense for me. Bluedogs and Republicans--quit creating obstacles that really aren't there and GET ON WITH IT.
Stand firm Blue Dogs! You are the last barrier in place against what will amount to another behemoth socialized taxpayer supported program.
The Blue Dogs are nothing but corporate shills. Most were Republicans who switched parties for opportunisitic reasons. They must be drummed out of the party. They stuck that 'trigger" trick into the mix in order to stifle the public option. It is insurance profit protectionism. The only real way to get good, low cost health CARE for All is Hr 676, Improved Medicare for All.
Any member in Congress who says they can't create a functional health care system to replace the mess we have now should resign immediatly to let someone with a brain do the job.
The private plans have too much overhead. Medicare is run more efficiently.
The Blue dogs better know that a Public Option is a must for any serious Health Reform, and that voting against or blocking or putting triggers will grant a primary battle and the support of all progressive groups and labor to their opponents.
Many people cannot afford a private plan that would cover their needs: i.e. I chronic illness and catastrophic situations. If insurance is mandatory and there is no public plan, then the costs of a private plan (relative to inflation) have to come down somehow.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: