Health care reform: Privately, Barack Obama strongly backs public option

[Deuce]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-healthcare-obama-1003-oct04,0,1969667.story?page=1

WASHINGTON -  -- Despite months of seeming ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched an intensifying behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea in the weeks just ahead.

President Barack Obama has long advocated a so-called public option, while at the same time repeatedly expressing openness to other ways to offer consumers a potentially more affordable alternative to health plans sold by private insurers.

But now, senior administration officials are holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring to the Senate floor later this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides.

Among those regularly in the meetings are Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle, aides to Reid, and Senate finance and health committee staff, both of which developed health care bills.

At the same time, Obama has been reaching out personally to rank-and-file Senate Democrats, telephoning more than a dozen lawmakers in the last week to press the case for action.

(cont. at link)

I think this is an interesting compromise on the "public option" debate. For the record, I would support a public option with several conditions. (no tax dollar support, entirely run on premiums, subject to same insurance regulations, has to negotiate its own rates, purely an option to never be forced on any citizen, doctor, or employer. Essentially just an insurance company staffed by the government) Worst case, I just say "no thanks" and don't sign up and it doesn't cost me a dime in taxes.

This idea I like better because it puts more power in the states hands rather than the federal government. If Nebraskans don't want a public option they don't have to have one. If New Yorkers sign up in droves and it fails miserably, well, they made their own bed and get to sleep in it.

What do you guys think? I'm a huge proponent of states rights so anything that takes power out of federal hands is good by me.

Fair Use Clause: all articles must be posted in the following format: Original article title must be used. No more than five paragraphs with the original link added below. A moderator may edit if these guidelines aren't followed. 

Editted by asdf2231 to comply with forum rules

[rich_t]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-healthcare-obama-1003-oct04,0,1969667.story?page=1

I think this is an interesting compromise on the "public option" debate. For the record, I would support a public option with several conditions. (no tax dollar support, entirely run on premiums, subject to same insurance regulations, has to negotiate its own rates, purely an option to never be forced on any citizen, doctor, or employer. Essentially just an insurance company staffed by the government) Worst case, I just say "no thanks" and don't sign up and it doesn't cost me a dime in taxes.

This idea I like better because it puts more power in the states hands rather than the federal government. If Nebraskans don't want a public option they don't have to have one. If New Yorkers sign up in droves and it fails miserably, well, they made their own bed and get to sleep in it.

What do you guys think? I'm a huge proponent of states rights so anything that takes power out of federal hands is good by me.

Convince us that you are huge proponent of states rights.

Should the states have the right to ban firearms?

Yes... this is a quiz.

[Deuce]

Thanks mod for the edit, I missed the 5-paragraph rule. Article title is the post title.

rich_t, I don't feel the need to convince you of anything. This thread is about healthcare, not firearms.

If a state wants to set up a public health insurance company, they should be allowed to do so. Given the mediocre-at-best support for such an option, you'd probably only see a few states actually give it a try.

[NHSparky]

Now answer rich's question, deuce.  Should states/cities be allowed to ban firearms?

[dandi]

The President is using the weight of his office to push his idea?  Wow!  The next thing you'll tell us is that the sun is hot!

 

What do you guys think? I'm a huge proponent of states rights so anything that takes power out of federal hands is good by me.

As a "huge proponent" of State's Rights, I am suspicious of anything a liberal socialist is trying to run down my throat.  Quite frankly, I say that DC can stick this one in their collective asses with the rest of their socialist health care "options".

[debk]

Thanks mod for the edit, I missed the 5-paragraph rule. Article title is the post title.

rich_t, I don't feel the need to convince you of anything. This thread is about healthcare, not firearms.

If a state wants to set up a public health insurance company, they should be allowed to do so. Given the mediocre-at-best support for such an option, you'd probably only see a few states actually give it a try.

Tennessee has a public health care system....and it's darn near bankrupted the state.

[thundley4]

Tennessee has a public health care system....and it's darn near bankrupted the state.

Every state that has a public health care system is having problems.

[dandi]

And one more thing:  How does Presidential arm-twisting qualify as breaking news?

[Chris]

Everybody loves posting in Breaking News.  It's the cool place to See and Be Seen.

Moved to Politics.

[Chris_]

And one more thing:  How does Presidential arm-twisting qualify as breaking news?

We don't have a "breaking wind" forum yet.
 

[bkg]

I'm biased. Just want that out of the way.

Dad ran a non-profit nursing home (non-union) for 25 years. Mom has been a nurse for ~40. Dad was a Kennedy Dem, Mom votes Republican. Sister is a wacked out Obama lover hypocrite.

Dad spent most of his life in an out of hospitals. Kidney transplant, two triple bi-passes, angioplasti, died waiting for a heart transplant. I have NOTHIGN bad to say about our healthcare.

Nobody has ever effectively provident a cojent argument for gov't takeover of healthcare - why is this at all (SLG or fed) a good idea? And more importantly, if it's really about access and competition, why won't the gov't remove regulations that prevent us from buying across borders? If it's about saving money, why won't gov't pass Tort reform or remove the mandates in coverages (like mental health that was added as part of TARP)????

I seriously don't get it.

And yes, all of the states have effectively bankrupt public systems. Hell, the public system costs Mayo about 70M a year in losses.

[debk]

We don't have a "breaking wind" forum yet.
 

no....but read a couple of threads that some of the new people are posting in and there is a distinct odor....

[dandi]

We don't have a "breaking wind" forum yet.
 

Well, that does indeed explain it.   

[jinxmchue]

Privately, Barack Obama strongly backs public option

Well, duh.

[Deuce]

Ok, how is Tennessee's state system set up? The devil is always in the details.

Like I said, I would support a system that runs purely from collected premiums from its customers. That way, none of my tax dollars are forced to pay for it. If the system runs off of taxpayer money, then it just isn't going to work. We've seen that time and time again. I've done a ton of research on other countries' health care systems, as my family has had a particularly hard time with America's. I've often thought about how to make it better here.

The only country who's system I've seen that remotely works is Switzerland, who has heavily regulated but privatized health insurance. Canada and the UK have horrific waiting times for some procedures. The Germans are said to have a good system, but they've actually been moving towards MORE privatization rather than less. They've got the same "Hey, we need more competition!" idea that I do.

I think America just needs more options. Open up insurance to cross state lines, create more non-profits and improve the tax incentives for them, and force insurance companies to be more up-front about their practices. Right now, a customer has very little idea about how good their insurance provider is until they actually get sick. You pay premiums for years only to get dropped the second you become seriously ill, for any  reason the corporate lackeys can come up with. (even typos have been used to deny a claim or drop a policy!) Few states require insurance companies to publicize that information. One insurance company in California was found to deny 39.6% of claims. The average in California was 21%. One in five!

So, assuming a state were to set up a tax-free health insurance company, I'm ok with it. If they were to raise taxes or increase the deficit to pay for health care, well, then I'm not.

[Chris_]

http://www.state.tn.us/tenncare/

The TennCare program operates under a Section 1115 waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It is a demonstration program. The principle being demonstrated by TennCare is that a state can organize its Medicaid program under a managed care model and generate sufficient savings to extend coverage to additional populations who would not otherwise be Medicaid eligible, without compromising quality of care.

It didn't work.

http://www.state.tn.us/tenncare/news-about.html

TennCare's troubling history

If good intentions were dollars, TennCare would be turning a profit instead of failing in its financial and moral responsibilities to the people of Tennessee.

After all, TennCare provides access to health care for the weakest and most vulnerable Tennesseans. It insures 850,000 people who are classified by the federal government as poor and therefore unable to provide health care for themselves and their families. Another 500,000 recipients of TennCare benefits are supposedly unable to buy insurance in the open market, so they buy it through TennCare.

TennCare replaced Tennessee's Medicaid program in 1994 with the promise of bringing free-market, managed care discipline to that runaway government program. Tennessee's business community, nervous about higher taxes to feed Medicaid, was happy. Advocates for the poor were happy, particularly since TennCare opened the door to universal health insurance. Members of the Legislature were happy because TennCare shifted millions of dollars of expenses to the federal government.

The only people not happy were doctors and hospital administrators, since they believed, correctly, that they were being grossly underpaid. Since they were accused of enriching themselves on the misery of the sick and at the expense of taxpayers, no one cared.

With one-quarter of Tennessee's population on its rolls, and with that kind of broad support, it seemed TennCare could not fail.

But it did.

MORE

[bkg]

SLG/Fed has no incentive to run anything that they can't a) steal money from or b) run into the ground. Your idea of a state-owned company that runs like a private company sounds nice to you on paper, but it fails in practice. Even if they set it up like a private company, it won't last. Isn't that how Social Security was supposed to work? And now it's almost bankrupt....

I have to say - I'll never, under any circumstance, agree with more gov't intervention in healthcare (or any aspect of our lives), especially after talking with my ex-girlfriends family... in Canada. That's just me.

[Deuce]

It's true that there is always the problem of implementation. The government never runs anything as hands off as I'd like it to be. Even when the law is written to protect us from it, they figure out a way around it.

On the other hand, our current system is fundamentally flawed. Private insurance companies are allowed to destroy families with a wave of a pen, and the do it every day because every dime they pay out in healthcare hurts their bottom line.

In the end, I think the best option is to address those failings. (denial of claims, revoking of policies, interfering with doctor decisions) This would require heavy regulation, but these are people's lives we're talking about. My uncle's insurance company will no longer pay for the treatment that was helping him with crippling back pain. He can't even get out of bed on his bad days now. What reason did they give? "Experimental treatments are not covered." It was working. Period. His doctor wanted the treatment, his insurance company said no.

Private companies shouldn't be able to get between you and your doctor any more than government should.

[bkg]

It's true that there is always the problem of implementation. The government never runs anything as hands off as I'd like it to be. Even when the law is written to protect us from it, they figure out a way around it.

On the other hand, our current system is fundamentally flawed. Private insurance companies are allowed to destroy families with a wave of a pen, and the do it every day because every dime they pay out in healthcare hurts their bottom line.

In the end, I think the best option is to address those failings. (denial of claims, revoking of policies, interfering with doctor decisions) This would require heavy regulation, but these are people's lives we're talking about. My uncle's insurance company will no longer pay for the treatment that was helping him with crippling back pain. He can't even get out of bed on his bad days now. What reason did they give? "Experimental treatments are not covered." It was working. Period. His doctor wanted the treatment, his insurance company said no.

Private companies shouldn't be able to get between you and your doctor any more than government should.

I think we'll tend to disagree on this subject as I believe the only thing allowing any sort of real or perceived wrong doing by ins. companies is the gov't regulations that prevent the free market from working. If people had the ability to drop their ins. company like they do auto insurance, the companies would have fewer opportunities to "screw" the captive audience. Unfortunately, gov't has their fingers so deep into this industry that you will never see true freedom and the basic "consumer protectinos" that come from real compettition.

I have nothing but good things to say about my dealings with insurnace. Once minor issue, but that was cleared up by making a phone call. My father was alive for 25 years longer than expected because of this health care industry, so they get my respect.

BTW - it's a myth that insurnace companies stand between consumers and doctors. A consumer can go to whatever doctor they choose whenever they want. Period. The only consideration is whether or not Ins. will pay for that visit. It's always an option to pay out of pocket. Always.