Baucu$ Plan: Good For Insurers, Bad For America

Do you really want a healthcare bill that does nothing to deliver real reform but instead rips off the middle class while lining the pockets of corrupt for-profit insurance companies?
That, to make a long story short, is the long ballyhooed proposal of Montana Sen. Max Baucu$, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on healthcare.
Baucu$ has sung a great song when it came to his support of a real public option during numerous appearances, but does his proposal INCLUDE a public option?
No.
What he proposed is a weak co-op with little, if any, accountability.
Does he really think this will pass as real healthcare reform? I think it passes more as snake oil instead of reform.
Here's what The Bagof Health and Politics observed in his Daily Kos diary called "The Moral Case Against the Baucus Bill":

If Baucus bill passes, millions of Americans will face a 13 percent tax hike in order to line the pockets of Baucus' insurance CEO buddies.
Since Senator Baucus shut progressives out of his negotiations, I will take the opportunity to explain my concerns, as a progressive. I have no problems with an individual mandate...as long as that mandate comes with strict restrictions on insurance industry profit and insurance industry executive compensation.
The current system, despite Baucus claims to the contrary, would be largely untouched by the Baucus bill. The problem with that is that the current system creates incentives for bad practices. Insurers try to please Wall Street by lowering their medical loss ratio. In layman's terms, that means insurance companies try to increase their stock price by denying cancer patients and abuse victims the medical care that they need in order to live healthy lives.

Is this the definition of change we can believe in? I dare say no.
I hope the Baucu$ bill reaches the trash heap as fast as possible so real healthcare reform proposals that will really rein in insurance companies while providing real competition and really affordable prices for Americans at large.

HuffPo Columnist's Fascinating Piece On Healthcare

I found this column to be very fascinating.
Says Robert Creamer in the Huffington Post:

The fact is that the odds are very good that President Obama will succeed in passing landmark health insurance reform legislation this fall - with a robust public health insurance option. The reason is simple: it's the high political ground.

Yes, like the 55 percent cited in the latest CNN poll that supports the public option and the three-quarters that support the same concept in similar surveys.
Besides citing the reasons why he feels healthcare reform will pass, Creamer added this comment that has seemed to be lost on those on both the left and right who are predicting doom and gloom for the legislation:

Early in August, Progressives were surprised at the ferocity of the right wing assault on Congressional town meetings. But it didn't take long for them to respond. Led by Obama's own organization , Organize for America (OFA), as well as HCAN, the Service Employees International Union, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- hundreds of thousands of Progressives have been mobilized to counter the Right. They swamped the Right at town meetings at the end of August and are now conducting a week of 2000 "Let's Get It Done" events in the lead-up to Congress' return.
There is no longer any lack of progressive intensity. The right wing assault awakened progressive passion that has spread like the Los Angeles wildfires.

And this doesn't even include the more progressive blogs and bloggers who are fighting by the minute for the public option (Two come in mind, and you'll see the writings of both in Daily Kos frequently-- slinkerwink and nyceve).
Here's how Creamer concludes his column:

My wife, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, hosted a town meeting in Skokie, Illinois on Monday night that attracted 2,300 people. Eighty-percent supported reform -- and they were pumped.
The response of voters asked to call Congress about health insurance reform has exploded.
Some of the millions of Americans who were engaged and mobilized by last year's Presidential campaign may have taken a respite from politics in the early months of 2009 - but they're back - and they are a massive political army that cannot be taken lightly.
In other words, as Members of Congress reconvene on the battleground for this fall's decisive engagement over health insurance reform, they will look up the political ridge and see that the cavalry has arrived.
I believe we will win.

Arkansas U.S. Senator Takes $$$ From Healthcare Foes, Flip-Flops On Public Option

I've only been to Arkansas one time (some years ago when my wife and I visited the city where she was born [hint: the same one where Bill Clinton was born]), but since that time, I've learned at least one thing about one of its senators-- she sure is a friend of healthcare opponents.
It's bad enough that Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln has flip-flopped on the public option, but what is even more revealing is how much a recipient she has become of money from the very ones fighting the reforms.
Here's part of what Roll Call reported about her flip-flop:

“For some in my caucus, when they talk about a public option, they’re talking about another entitlement program, and we can’t afford that right now as a nation,” Lincoln said in a speech to the Elder Law Task Force at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. “I’m not going to vote for a bill that’s not deficit-neutral, and I’m not going to vote for a bill that doesn’t do something about curbing the cost in the out years, because it would be pointless. ... I would not support a solely government-funded public option. We can’t afford that.”
But in an opinion piece she wrote for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in July, Lincoln said the public insurance option should be included in health care reform legislation. A public insurance option would compete with private insurers to offer health care coverage.
“Health care reform must build upon what works and improve inefficiencies. Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan,” she wrote.

But who DOES have Lincoln's ear? Check this out from the Huffington Post:

BLANCHE LINCOLN IS THE QUEEN OF CASH FROM THE HEALTH INDUSTRY The Sunlight Foundation's Paul Blumenthal reports that Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) has taken more money in campaign contributions from the health industry than all but one of her Democratic peers in 2009. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Lincoln benefited from $325,350 in contributions from the health industry in the first half of 2009.
"The large amount in contributions underlies a constantly shifting position by the senator on health care reform," notes Blumenthal. Lincoln sits on the Senate Finance Committee, the lone panel that has so far failed to get its act together on health care reform legislation.

Here's a list of the top 20 Lincoln contributors since 2005 (healthcare interests in bold):

(name of company)--total--individuals-- PACs

1 Nix, Patterson & Roach $60,200 $60,200 $0
2 Home Depot $47,500 $12,500 $35,000
3 Weyerhaeuser Co $44,150 $20,150 $24,000
4 Wal-Mart Stores $43,300 $13,300 $30,000
5 Stephens Group $38,800 $28,800 $10,000
6 Esop Assn $36,250 $250 $36,000
7 American College of Radiology $35,000 $0 $35,000
8 Entergy Corp $34,100 $7,600 $26,500
9 FedEx Corp $33,400 $3,400 $30,000
10 Koch Industries $32,500 $2,500 $30,000
11 National Thoroughbred Racing Assn $32,000 $2,000 $30,000
12 American Physical Therapy Assn $30,000 $0 $30,000
12 AT&T Inc $30,000 $500 $29,500
14 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp $29,900 $2,400 $27,500
15 Tyson Foods $29,600 $7,600 $22,000
16 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $29,500 $11,000 $18,500
17 DaVita Inc $29,150 $19,150 $10,000
18 College of American Pathologists $28,000 $0 $28,000
19 National Assn of Broadcasters $25,750 $8,250 $17,500
20 American Assn of Nurse Anesthetists $25,500 $0 $25,500

This sure makes me wonder whether Lincoln really concerned about average folks in her state or is she far more concerned about the moneybags who fund her campaigns from healthcare interests who oppose any reform?
If I were living in Arkansas, I'd be sending lots of letters to Lincoln and my other Congress critters demanding passage for healthcare reform. Short of that, I sure hope this woman gets the strongest possible primary opponent since she won't stand up for average folks by supporting the public option.

What, If Any, Kind Of Public Option Will Obama Propose?

Will President Obama finally say not only that he supports a public option, but then specify what kind of a public option he'll support?
That's one of the things I'm wondering about in the days leading to the president's speech to Congress on the need to pass meaningful healthcare reform on Sept. 9.
O.K., the legislation that passes Congress will be less than perfect and it's not going to include lots of things I would like to see in any bill, but what I would like to see is real action not only to address the 47 million who don't have health insurance, but millions more who are underinsured and many others who have been denied coverage because of either pre-existing conditions or because they became ill.
The New York Times detailed what one might conclude a series of "trial balloons" designed to test reaction to some possibilities.
Here's part of the Times report:

Administration officials said Wednesday that Mr. Obama would be more specific than he has been to date about what he wants included in the plan. Doing so amounts to an acknowledgment that the president’s prior tactic of laying out broad principles and leaving Congress to fill in the details was no longer working and that Mr. Obama needed to become more personally involved in shaping the outcome.
But the officials said Mr. Obama was unlikely to unveil a detailed legislative plan of his own. And they insisted that Mr. Obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers, although many Democrats say the proposal may eventually be jettisoned.

So what is it about the public option that Republicans and insurance companies are afraid of. I'm fed up to here about the crying that Republican politicians like my area's shameful Taliban congressman, Pete Sessions (TX-32), about how private insurers won't be able to compete against a public option and that a public option will lead to a government takeover of healthcare.
Having a government-run public option sure hasn't led to a government monopoly in the package delivery business. If you don't believe me, just ask FedEx and UPS, two private companies who continually get handsome chunks of the package delivery business even with a public option-- the U.S. Postal Service-- available.
Why isn't the media pointing this out continually in their assessments of the arguments for and against the public option? And why is the media so obsessed with citing polls pointing to erosions in President Obama's popularity that they are completely leaving out polls pointing toward overwhelming support of the public option?
It seems that the media is asleep at the wheel when it comes to providing accurate coverage of the public option and the American people's overwhelming support for it. And with President Obama's talk on Sept. 9 drawing closer, it is very appropriate for the American people to hold the president's feet (as well as the feet of those in Congress) on the fire and force them to pass real healthcare reform with a real public option.

CNN Poll: 55 Percent SUPPORT Public Option

What part of this poll don't the mainstream media, Obama Administration, and members of Congress don't understand?
Remember the old album title that suggested that a large number of Elvis fans couldn't be wrong? The same can be said in this latest CNN poll that shows a clear majority favoring a public option.
This is the third poll that shows favoritism of a strong public option despite the millions of dollars right-wing groups and insurance companies have spent trying to defeat it.
Reports Jed in Daily Kos:

CNN poll by Opinion Research, 1,010 adults, 8/28-31, +/- 3 pts (pdf):

Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?
Favor - 55%
Oppose - 41%
No opinion - 4%

Note that the public option receives a wide margin of support even though the question uses the word "administer," which could be confusing to some who think it means the government would actually be administering the health care, instead of acting as a insurer like Medicare.
Still, despite the wording, this poll shows that there is strong support for the public option, even after a long summer of siege warfare by teabaggers against doing any reform at all.
The natural reaction to this should be to plow forward, especially given that 4 of the 5 committees with jurisdiction have a public option in their health care plan.

The question is whether the folks at the Obama Administration and in Congress get the point.
The teabaggers, birthers, deathers, and the rest of the assorted liars who have spread disinformation and lies about healthcare care reform may feel they have won (with support of mainstream media members too lazy to look beyond the noise of these nuts), but clearly on the very public option they hate, they DON'T represent the majority of the American people.
Big question: Will the rest of the media report this poll with the same (if not more) prominence than they have given the anti-reform liars?

Back In The Saddle, But Still Hungry For Healthcare Reform

Like Gene Autry once sung, I'm "Back In The Saddle Again."
After a few days of battling the fever (I was at 102 degrees at one point Thursday night) I'm back up and around following a much needed day of rest to bring my body back to normal.
And after watching as much of the tributes to Ted Kennedy as I could to go along with my doses of Texas (St)Rangers baseball and tonight's (Sorry)Boy game against the 49ers, I'm as loaded for bear as I could be.
To start with, one cannot discuss Ted Kennedy without discussing what he said was "the cause of his life," namely national health insurance. Contrary to what naysaying Democrats, Republicans, and their friends in the Washington pundit class are saying, healthcare reform is not subject to compromise-- especially when it comes to the public option.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is out of his tree when he says that a public option can be privately run, and another Democratic senator, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, needs a strong dose of reality juice for continue to press for the total watering down of any reform by pushing weak co-ops to stand in the place of a public option.
What is there to be afraid of about the public option? There are already two single-payer government-run healthcare systems in this country, namely Medicare (for seniors) and the Veterans Administration, and both have been strong in delivering quality benefits for their participants.
And how about this poppycock about a public option driving private insurers out of business? Have these people ever heard of FedEx and UPS?
Both FedEx and UPS are privately-run delivery companies that have garnered large chunks of the national and international delivery businesses even with the availability of a strong public option, namely the U.S. Postal Service. If FedEx and UPS can win large chunks of the package delivery market by delivering quality service to their customers, why can't private insurers become just as inventive in producing quality products against a Medicare-like public option?
Are these private for-profit insurance companies so lazy about becoming more inventive and customer-friendly that they'd rather spend millions to defeat healthcare reform instead of doing what it takes to provide better services even in the face of competition from a robust Medicare-like public option?
America cannot afford anything less than robust healthcare reform with a real Medicare-style public option, and if lazy politicians like Harry Reid, Kent Conrad, and their ilk don't want to deliver it, they should step aside and allow those who really want to honor the memory of Ted Kennedy to step forward and ram this legislation directly to President Obama's desk even if it gets no Republican support.

Max Baucus: "I Want A Public Option Too!"

This is HUGE!
Here's what's being reported in Firedoglake:

U.S. Senator Max Baucus has finally broken his silence regarding his personal position on including a public option in health care reform legislation. Last Monday night (8/17), in an unprecedented conference call to Montana Democratic central committee chairs, the powerful leader of the Senate Finance Committee told his strongest supporters that he supported a public option.
While discussing the obstacles to getting a public option through the Senate, he assured his forty listeners, "I want a public option too!"
The conference call was groundbreaking in that none of the recipients could ever remember this kind of call ever happening before. The teleconference was set up seemingly in reaction to rising discontent among the local Democratic leaders with the Senator's failure to take a clear position on the issue.
The discussion, which became contentious and rancorous at times, also touched upon the wisdom of creating insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a public option. When several of the county chairs objected, commenting that they did not trust the health insurance companies to police themselves and limit their outrageous corporate profits, Baucus commented, "Neither do I."
In the aftermath of the teleconference, a coalition of eighteen Montana counties in the Senator's home state decided to move forward with their plan to issue a Unified Statement accompanied by a joint press release. The statement sends a loud and clear message to their Senator: Any health care reform package coming out of his Senate Finance Committee must contain, at a minimum, a provision for a strong public option.

Now let's see how another senator, "co-op" Kent Conrad, handles similar pressure when confronted with a strong push for a public option.
(NOTE: In all the stories I'm seeing about the public option in the mainstream media (particularly the Los Angeles Times), I haven't seen a word about polling that shows 77 PERCENT SUPPORT for a public option.
So much for us losing the battle).

L.A. Times Reports Unacceptable Senate Finance Committee Health Care Deal

Slinkerwink in Daily Kos presented another excellent diary today on the fight for meaningful health care reform, this one on pending legislation in the Senate Finance Committee that would force patients to pay as much as 35 percent of their healthcare costs.
The diary quotes a section of a story that appears in the Los Angeles Times that contends that health insurance interests have "gained the upper hand" in the battle.
Here's part of what the Times reported about what's being hatched in the Senate Finance Committee:

"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.
Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"
The insurers' success so far can be explained in part by their lobbying efforts in the nation's capital and the districts of key lawmakers.

The L.A. Times piece continues:

"The insurers are going to do quite well," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "They are going to have this very stable pool, they're going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage and . . . they will be paid the full costs of the benefits that they provide -- plus their administrative costs."

Any bill that requires patients to pay as much as 35 percent of the bill is totally unacceptable. In fact, the bill wouldn't even be reform at all.
Slinkerwink continues:

And you know what's egregiously bad about this? Private insurance companies currently pay about 80% of insurance policy claims, and in the Senate Finance Bill, the requirement for them will be lowered to 65%! That means you'd be required to pick up 35% of your medical bills. See? You get covered, but you're forced to pay 35% of your bills.
That's why I keep saying that universal coverage does not equate affordability.

The American people can't afford to pay 35 percent of their healthbills. How can the Senate Finance Committee explain that this would be desirable legislation to those like me who struggle to make ends meet?
Maximum pressure must be applied to right-wing Democrats in name only that this bill is unacceptable and no reform would be far better than what these so-called conservatives are hatching.
And maximum publicity must be exposed on the fraud of a campaign being waged by opponents who claim that they represent the best interests of the American people but in fact really don't.
As Slinkerwink writes:

Where's the affordability really for the middle-class in this crappy Senate Finance Bill? I don't see it, especially not with a community rating of 7:1 in that bill, which means you could pay seven times what a young adult pays especially if you're an adult in your 50s or 60s.

Gibbs: Obama Still Supports Public Option

After hearing all the rumors about possible waivering in the Obama Administration for a robust public option in any healthcare legislation, we now read this from our president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, on the subject:

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.

I'm amazed that the White House hasn't pressed perhaps one of the strongest arguments for a public option-- it sure hasn't led to a government takeover of the package delivery business (just ask two private companies, FedEx and UPS, when it comes to gaining a large chunk of the package delivery business even with competition from the U.S. Postal Service).
If FedEx and UPS can compete effectively against the USPS, why can't private insurers if they really think they have an effective, customer-friendly, and affordable product to sell? I sure hope we hear that argument more.