Just Do It!

From Talking Points Memo:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has added his name to a letter from a group of progressive Senators, calling for the public option to be included in the health care bill through the reconciliation process.

"At a time when there is deep skepticism and mistrust of the private insurance industry, when just last month a major health insurer in California announced it would raise its premiums by a whopping 39 percent in one fell swoop, the American people have made it clear that they want the option to buy their insurance through a Medicare-type, government-run public insurance plan," Sanders said in a press release.

Eight other Senators have signed the letter so far. Its original signatories Michael Bennet (D-CO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), released the letter yesterday. Four others -- Al Franken (D-MN), John Kerry (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) -- signed on earlier today.

Doesn't A "Public Option" Mean The Entire Public Should Have An Option?

A watered-down public option. The Confederates don't like that, either.

Hey, Harry Reid--Grab A Mop & Get To Work.

Surprise! Jackals Want To Jack Up Your Health Insurance Premiums!

If Democrats had balls, Congress would be voting on a single-payer health care system right about now. But many of them don't. So the past few months have been spent arguing for a watered-down public option. That fight has often been won by the more conservative (read: health industry-backed) members of their own party. So why is it again that a robust public option is critical to real reform?

Oh yeah...

From ThinkProgress:

After months of publicly supporting health care reform, insurers are warning Congress that under the Baucus health care bill, “the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy…will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.”

The industry has issued a new report arguing that the weak personal responsibility requirement, taxes on health care providers, spending reductions in Medicare and taxes on high-value health plans will increase “the cost of coverage for both single and family policies in the individual, small group, large group, and self-funded insurance markets.”

Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn dispute the report’s methodology here and here, but it’s worth pointing out that industry’s argument that reform will increase insurance premiums for all Americans is simply untrue. It could also backfire. As Rep. Anthony Weinder (D-NY) explained this morning on MSNBC, “the health insurance lobby today fired the most important salvo in weeks for the public option“:

If you have the health care industry complaining that we’re going to raise costs because of these changes, it is them putting us on notice that we haven’t put enough cost containment in the bill. You know, the health care industry themselves is putting out a whole report saying that. That should be a tell to the Baucus team that you know what, maybe it’s time for them to go back and revisit the public option. In a strange way, and look, obviously they didn’t mean this, the health insurance lobby today fired the most important salvo in weeks for the public option, because they have said, as clear as day, left to their own devices, according to their own number crunchers, they’re going to raise rates 111%.

The reality is, some reform provisions would tend to make premiums higher than current-law premiums; other provisions would “tend to make them lower.” Americans from different income brackets will pay different amounts for health care, but on the whole, the Baucus bill, which provides affordability subsidies for Americans between 133-400% federal poverty line, will offer health insurance policies that are far more affordable than what the insurance industry report predicts.

Here is a comparison between the non partisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the cost of premiums in the Exchange and the industry’s report. As it points out, under reform, Americans — even those that don’t qualify for a subsidy — will have far more affordable insurance options than industry’s “average” suggests:

Insurer Analysis: Premiums In 2016	CBO Analysis: Premiums In 2016 (Exchange)
$21,300	$14,400

Still, the Baucus bill must do more to control health care spending and lower premiums in the private market. After all, Congress shouldn’t force Americans to purchase unaffordable coverage. But for all their concern about ‘average health care costs’, insurers have a poor track record of controlling prices. As Families USA points out, insurers are “like a poker player who complains about his hand when, in fact, he is the dealer.”

Indeed, despite complaining about high health care premiums, insurers have lobbied against system-wide cost containment. They’ve spent millions of dollars opposing a public option that could reduce health case spending by some $150 billion and are even suing the state of Maine to increase premiums.

The insurance lobby is “conveniently forgetting that they imposed significant premiums increases during the past decade that are making health coverage unaffordable for families and businesses.” Now, since they’ve published a report promising to increase health insurance premiums even higher, the Senate must insert a public option mechanism (along with other cost-containment provisions) to competitively lower rates and keep the private health insurers honest.

Public Option NOW!

From the New York Times:

Liberal Senate Democrats on Friday will push to add a government-run insurance program to the health care bill in the Finance Committee, setting off a potentially explosive debate with Republicans who view the idea as a step toward “socialized medicine."

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Thursday evening they would propose the government-run program — the so-called public plan — because efforts to revamp the health system and cover the uninsured would fail without it.

“The best way to control costs, the best way to make availability easier is to have competition to the insurance industry which does not have to make a profit,” Mr. Rockefeller said in a conference call with reporters. Mr. Rockefeller said the public plan would combat the “rapacious instincts” of private insurers.

Centrist Senate Democrats long ago nixed the idea, knowing that it would be a deal-breaker with Republicans, and are expected to defeat the proposal on Friday.

Even the one Republican still willing to vote for the bill, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, has said she would support a public plan only as a fallback to be triggered in geographic areas where the legislation fails to provide affordable insurance.

Mr. Schumer said he would push the idea even if the finance panel rejects it. “It’s a fight that is going to go down to the wire,” he said.

But even if Congress creates a public plan, it would not be available to the majority of Americans who now have employer-sponsored health insurance, because the legislation would force them to keep their existing coverage.

Baucus & Butthead.

Baucus and Butthead - watch more funny videos

Won't Rupert Have To Fire Him Now?

Make The Call.

Click here to make the call, complete the form and watch the video.

Public Option Or Big Pharma: Which Will It Be, Mr. President?

If you've been paying attention, you are aware that the Republican Party ceased to exist on January 20th, a tad past noon, just as Barack Obama said, "So help me God."

The deceased--and diseased--GOP instantly became the home of the modern-day John Birch Society. They rebranded themselves as the Party of No, and chose charlatans such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as their inspiration.

But there are still two major political parties in the United States. They're both within the Democratic Party, however:

From Newser.com:

Harry Reid declared "90% agreement" in the Senate on health care reform today after a meeting with President Obama. Reid and Nancy Pelosi expressed optimism that the president's address to Congress tomorrow will bolster support for reform, the Hill reports. The Senate Majority Leader is confident that the speech will at least defuse some of the “ridiculous falsehoods” that have so far dominated the debate.

The two congressional leaders did not seem in sync on the issue of a public option: Reid said he and the majority of the Senate wanted it but did not see it as necessary. Pelosi, however, said the creation of a government-run health plan was “essential” for passage in the House.

So we have the pro-public option Democrats, who represent the Good Guys in the health care reform debate. Then we have the we-don't give-a-shit-about-a-public-option Democrats. Two parties, divisible, with liberty and justice for some.

Meanwhile, as Newser points out:

White House press chief Robert Gibbs didn't shed any light on whether Obama would demand a public option, but he said the president would make sure people “understand what the public option is and what the public option isn't.”

The only thing I don't understand about the public option is what the hell Robert Gibbs is double-talking about.

It's really quite simple: will President Obama go to the mat for a public option? Or will he give in to Big Pharma, the health insurance industry's money-soaked lobby, and the town hall disrupting, teabagging, talk radio-fueled frantic fringe?

Mr. Gibbs, we know what the public option is, and we want it.

Change we can believe in. Remember?

Are Dems Poised To Give In On A Public Option?

Is that the Democrats' white flag?

From the AP:

White House officials said Sunday a government health insurance option is negotiable, signaling a potential compromise on an issue that President Barack Obama's liberal supporters consider do-or-die.

As Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, political adviser David Axelrod said a public plan is not the core issue in the health care debate. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs danced around a question about whether Obama would veto a bill without the public option.

The president "believes the public option is a good tool," said Axelrod, who joined with Gibbs in a one-two punch on the Sunday talk shows. "It shouldn't define the whole health care debate, however."

Their appearances came ahead of Congress' return this week from a summer break that saw eroding public support for an overhaul and contentious town hall meetings in lawmakers' districts.

Gibbs called the government plan a valuable tool. But asked if Obama would reject legislation that didn't include it, he responded: "We are not going to prejudge where the process will be."

"I doubt we are going to get into heavy veto threats" in the president's speech, Gibbs added.

Their comments on the public plan echoed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' remarks last month that a government alternative to private insurance is "not the essential element" in revamping the system to guarantee coverage for all and try to curb unsustainable costs.

Liberals — many of whom want to do away with the private health insurance industry and replace it with Medicare for all — were furious. At the time, White House officials said Sebelius' remarks were being misinterpreted. Left unclear was Obama's bottom line.

Now it seems that Obama and his top aides are coming around to the view that a public plan is not essential. On a call with prominent liberal House members Friday, Obama refused to be pinned down on the issue, a participant told The Associated Press.

Democrats rule the House and the Senate, and Barack Obama was elected in part due to his campaign pledge to reform health care. Most agree that true reform must include a public option. And now that option is being described as a "tool," and non-essential.

Why are Republican ideas still winning in Washington?

Health Care Reform Summary: Sam Sedar Interviews Rolling Stone Contributing Editor Matt Taibbi.

My Question For President Obama.

I asked:

"President Obama says he is a strong supporter of a public option. Bottom line: with Republicans seemingly unwilling to support a public option, is President Obama willing to follow the advice of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Gov. Howard Dean to use reconciliation--an up-or-down vote--to pass real health care reform with a strong public option? And--if not--why not?"

If you have a question about health care reform, click here to send it to President Obama.

The forum will begin at 2:30 Eastern Time on Thursday, and you can watch it here: http://my.barackobama.com/watch

Sell-Outs To The Max.

The "Baucus Caucus" is comprised of six U.S. senators who may well fuck up health care reform.

Joining fellow Democrat and Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus of Montana are Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine, Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming and senior GOPer Charles Grassley of Iowa round out the committee.

Word from Washington yesterday was that if the committee gets its way, a public option is dead and employers will not be required to offer coverage to employees.

Why?

Bipartisanship.

Republicans claim a public option is a deal-breaker, and a counter-proposal to an employer mandate may center around payment of government subsidies for which their employees qualify.

The committee is pushing a series of private, non-profit cooperatives in lieu of a public option, which critics claim will do little to curb costs. In fact, the nation's largest such co-op--Group Health--will increase premiums by an average of 13% this year.

As has been expressed previously in this space, screw bipartisanship! Why cut a watered-down deal with a Republican Party who has no interest in working with Democrats on anything? Why seek support from a party whose chairman openly mocks President Obama's vision of health care reform as "socialism?" Why are Democrats negotiating against themselves?

Hey, Democrats, how about taking Independent Senator Bernie Sanders's advice?

He's the one guy in the Democratic caucus who seems to be making any sense.

Co-Opting A Public Option?

On The Road To Health Care Reform.

From the AP, via HuffPo:

The nation's hospitals will give up $155 billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments to help defray the cost of President Barack Obama's health care plan, a concession the White House hopes will boost an overhaul effort that's hit a roadblock in Congress.

Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal at the White House on Wednesday, with administration officials and hospital administrators at his side.

"Reform is coming. It is on track; it is coming. We have tried for decades to fix a broken system, and we have never, in my entire tenure in public life, been this close," Biden said. And in a firm message to lawmakers, Biden added, "We must--and we will --enact reform by the end of August."

The New York Times offers a reminder that "what's in it for me?" is sure to be asked by the suddenly benevolent:

The deals, trumpeted loudly by the White House, would each help pay for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system.

First, it was a broad consortium of health industry groups — doctors, hospitals, drug makers and insurers, all promising to slow the growth of medical spending by 1.5 percent. Then, it was the big drug makers, promising savings of $80 billion over 10 years, by lowering the cost of medicine for the elderly.

On Wednesday, it will be major hospital associations, pledging to save more than $150 billion over a decade. And a deal with doctors is said to be on tap next.

In each case, the Obama administration hailed the agreements as historic. But what has been little discussed is what the industry groups will be getting in return for their cooperation, whether or not the promised savings ever materialize...

“I’m delighted to hear that people are stepping up to help reduce costs,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who is leading the Senate health committee, “but I want to know what the ask is, and the ask sometimes can exceed the value of your cost savings.”

Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel seems to have been talked down from his earlier worrisome musings, according to ThinkProgress:

After initially indicating his support for a public plan “trigger,” (the) White House chief of staff...reassured House Democrats tonight that he strongly backs a public plan. Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) said she told Emanuel that support for a “trigger” would cause health reform to lose Democratic votes:

“We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game,” Woolsey said she told Emanuel. “People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said Emanuel reassured him that he “doesn’t stand by that trigger.”

JackRabbit Café will continue to shine a light on the high (and low) roads taken on the long journey toward health care reform. But if moderate Democrats run real reform into the ditch, they can drag their own asses out of that hole.

UPDATE: Earlier this week, I cross-posted my own health care story on Daily Kos and some nice folks shared their stories and thoughts. They're here if you'd like to read them.

Don't Thumb Your Nose At Real Reform.

From Sam Stein on HuffPo:

In an effort that seemed designed to appease concerned progressive advocates, President Barack Obama issued a clarifying statement about the administration's commitment to a "public option" for health insurance while traveling in Russia on Tuesday.

"I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest," read the statement. "I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals."

The vague reassurance came hours after Obama's own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel suggested that the White House would be comfortable with legislation that had a public plan "triggered" in only by worsening economic conditions.

"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal. "The goal is non-negotiable; the path is" negotiable.

It was, White House aides insist, far from a commitment to a trigger option. But a source close to the administration, who has been in contact with the White House on health care matters, said that Emanuel has been "floating" the trigger compromise since January.

"Rahm's problem with this is he is on the more conservative end of the Democratic Party and he is a very political guy," the source added. "He is working for a way out without a bloody fight. The problem is he doesn't mind taking that fight to the left. And what I worry could happen is the left will just quit."

And what I worry could happen is that the soft, squishy center of the Democratic Party will sell real reformers out.

How Come His Coverage Is So Much Better Than The Average Joe's?

Joe says, "No!" to a healthcare public option...

Gee, Joe; you might want to look into that cough. I mean, you're insured, right?

You bet he is. I posted about the great work Lee Stranahan was doing with his independently-produced health care reform videos previously. Check out this one, and don't worry about Joe's cough; he's got it covered...

No Retreat, No Surrender.

From ThinkProgess:

In an emailed statement to Bloomberg News, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she’s open to the idea of dropping a public health insurance option in favor of a medical-insurance cooperative. “You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan,” Sebelius said.

The leading co-op proposal in the Senate, offered by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), does not share the attributes of a public plan. Instead, Conrad’s proposal would create multiple state or regional non-profits as a competitor to the private insurance market. As Howard Dean has said of this plan: “The co-ops are too small to compete with the big, private insurance companies. They will kill the co-ops completely by undercutting them, using their financial clout to do it.”

Bloomberg’s Al Hunt asked Sebelius, “[If] you’re willing to compromise on your notion of a public plan…what’s non-negotiable?” Sebelius responded that the final bill has to “have a comprehensive approach that lowers costs. That’s non-negotiable.” She added reform also “needs to provide coverage for everyone.”

Here she is today on Bloomberg TV:

Why is Sebelius talking about a co-op compromise today? Screw compromise. According to Politico, she defended a public option yesterday, specifically as it relates to conservative's claims of rationed care:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defended the government-run program favored by President Obama against arguments that it would ration care.

“I don’t think there’s anything about the public option that would ration care. Unfortunately care is being rationed each and everyday right now. Often private insurance companies stand between a patient and a doctor deciding what treatment can be provided,” she said on Fox News Sunday. “We also have a situation where a lot of people are told that they can’t have insurance because they have a preexisting condition.”

Secretary Sebelius, why compromise with a group of Republicans who have absolutely no intention of supporting anything that upsets the status quo? Hell, we have enough problems with a handful of Democrats whose pockets are so full of insurance company cash that they tip over every time they walk through the doors of the Capitol.

Let's Not Make A Deal.

From Paul Krugman in the New York Times:

Really bad news on the health care front. After making the case for a public option, and doing it very well, Obama said this:

“We have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don’t have health insurance or are underinsured,” Mr. Obama said. “Those are the broad parameters that we’ve discussed.”

There he goes again, gratuitously making a big gift to the other side.

My big fear about Obama has always been not that he doesn’t understand the issues, but that his urge to compromise — his vision of himself as a politician who transcends the old partisan divisions — will lead him to negotiate with himself, and give away far too much. He did that on the stimulus bill, where he offered an inadequate plan in order to win bipartisan support, then got nothing in return — and was forced to reduce the plan further so that Susan Collins could claim her pound of flesh.

And now he’s done it on a key component of health care reform. What was the point of signaling, right at this crucial moment, that he’s willing to give away the public plan? Let alone doing it at the very moment that he was making such a good case for it?

Maybe there’s a way to recover from this. But it’s up to the health reform activists to stiffen the administration’s spine. Obama may be satisfied with “broad parameters” — but the rest of us aren’t, and have to make that known.

From Bloomberg.com:

Representative Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said that chamber will pass a measure that includes a public program.

“Americans overwhelmingly support a public option for health care,” Rangel, a Democrat of New York, said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “We need competition.” Rangel’s committee holds a hearing on the legislation today.

Obama is signaling that he’s willing to compromise, and yesterday White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel carried the message to lawmakers that the president is “open to alternatives,” Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota said.

Mr. President, please don't tell us that in your quest for bipartisanship, you will negotiate a public option away. Because if you tell us that, we will have to tell you that that's not the change we voted for.

UPDATE: Sen. Conrad denies the Bloomberg story.