General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElimination of ‘Public Option’ Threw Consumers to the Insurance Wolves
Published: February 18, 2015 | Authors: Wendell Potter | The Center for Public Integrity | News Investigation
When members of Congress caved to demands from the insurance industry and ditched their plan to establish a public option health plan, the lawmakers also ditched one of their favorite talking points, that a government-run plan was necessary to keep insurers honest.
Getting rid of a government-run insurance option was the industrys top objective during the health care reform debate. Private insurers set out to persuade President Obama and Congressional leaders that they were trustworthy. Lawmakers were led to believe, for one thing, that insurers could be trusted to offer policies that would continue to give Americans access to the doctors they had developed relationships with and wanted to keep. And they were persuaded that insurers wouldnt think of engaging in bait-and-switch tactics that would leave folks with less coverage than they thought they were buying.
When he was running for president, Obama regularly talked about the need for a public option. That was one reason why many health care reform advocates supported him instead of Hillary Clinton.
He kept insisting on a public option for months after he was elected. He said on July 18, 2009, Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchangea one-stop-shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest
Soon after that, though, he began to waffle. It became clear to me as well as public option supporters in Congress that industry lobbyists had gotten to him. In an effort to keep the public option idea alive, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited me to testify during a Sept. 16, 2009, meeting of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee Forum on Health Insurance Reform.
Knowing the industry as I did, I told the committee that if Congress failed to create a public option to compete with private insurers, the bill it sends to the President might as well be called The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act. Pelosi insisted that Congress had no intention of doing that.
While Pelosi was able to get a bill through the House with a public option provision, she couldnt control what was happening in the Senate. Although a majority of Senate Democrats supported the public option, the industry knew it only needed one senator who caucused with the Dems to change his mind and kill it.
A senator from Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world, became the industrys go-to guy. Insurers had spent years investing in Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat-turned-Independent....
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/02/18/elimination-public-option-threw-consumers-insurance-wolves/
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)This would be a Republican wet dream if they could just eliminate the part that says the insurance companies actually have to pay.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)ACA health screening once a year. It is basically two parts, if they find something from the blood test, like high lipids, you get low cost medicine. The other side is if they find something abnormal from the tests of your physical conditions/pre-existing conditions, then you pay that $6,000.00 deductible or the amount of your Plan. So why have a colonoscopy or mammogram if you cannot afford to do anything about it? IMO, most people using an ACA Marketplace Plan, do not have the deductible and would be paying the insurance company monthly payments for life. What happens next year when the test are all due again? The cost will be mounting to about $12,000.00 for two years by then! You are now bankrupt or past it. Will your children be paying off the debt? 50% of American children live in poverty. Every American needs affordable and REAL Healthcare.
The Republican Plan is to drop anyone who cannot pay a deductible/drop those with physical conditions/pre-existing conditions. That is most everybody above 35 years age. The rest of the GOP Plan is to put most of us out to pasture to eat grass and allow the counties to accept tax monies to bury the dead. It is the GOP American Way, to get ride of all those who have become poor in America due to the theft of Trickle-Up. Health Insurance companies remain unchanged even though most consumers live pay check to pay check. This is another harmful part of inequality and austerity.
Response to world wide wally (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just cant do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesnt have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
This is what the Democratic Party does; its who they are. Theyre willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as theres no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bushs eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bushs habeas and interrogation abuses (Gosh, what can we do? We just dont have 60 votes).
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, its Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, its Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and breaking with their party to ensure Michael Mukaseys confirmation as Attorney General; then its Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then its Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they cant blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they dont need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Insurance companies "eased up on the reins" of their people in congress when they realized how much they could make off this. The only way they could have passed the public option would have been if insurance companies were allowed to dump all their high risk customers onto the government, but that would have made it prohibitively expensive.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)of traitor Lieberman just made me ruin my keyboard.
And not in a fun way.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Brings back bad memories, doesn't it?
tblue37
(65,403 posts)Joe Bacon
(5,165 posts)So glad that ass is gone from the Senate!
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)established MNCare years before. Unfortunately during the Palenty years most of our health care programs - MNCare, Medicaid, etc. were changed to include a choice of plans offered by an insurance company such as Humana, Medica, etc.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Awful senator, awful VP candidate. Just awful. He was my senator, and I couldn't stand him.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)having been defeated in the Democratic primary.
It was his last big wet kiss to the insurance industry.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)The rest? Who cares, as long as Joe got his. AWFUL.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)...by the Democratic Senators when Lieberman returned to the Senate?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Republicans in
they tell us to go to the primaries, but they torpedo them when the money-party candidates are about to lose
remember how the leaders expressed RELIEF after Scott Brown won? the supermajority was over and now the pressure to pass bills was off
it's a sweatshop model for the party: they get the same corporate contributions even if they lose: if they lose they get to blame the American people for their own condition; if they win, they work with the GOP they threaten us with and pass crippling policies that they threaten us with, and ask us what are we gonna do about it
There aren't enough emoticons.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)after his despicable betrayal of that same party. THAT was such a slap in the face to all those who had worked so hard to rid the Senate of his presence. And they WON. But his huge donors weren't about to let their best advocate lose like that. So he was hugely funded to run a ridiculous, one man party race to keep his place in the Senate.
He wanted those chairs so badly. Had the Dems chosen to threaten to remove them, he would have caved like the weakling he is.
Which begs the question, why didn't they? He is NOW the 'excuse' used for why there is no PO. They really do think we are stupid, don't they?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I recall genuine outrage both here on DU and in the progressive community in general when the Public Option was taken off the table at the very beginning.
I really do hope that the good Obama care has done along with its faults will push this country to a genuine universal health care system of some kind. I'm now on Medicare and I'm very pleasantly surprised at how good it is. At least for my needs.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)this WHOLE episode and the details of it will vanish into the wayback machine and not be learned by the next batch of activists..
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)You just don't appreciate the President!
kath
(10,565 posts)yep, that's what we ended up with.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)since day one. The ACA is not health care, it's health insurance. And it's not affordable health insurance at that.
C Moon
(12,213 posts)or did he just go sour after losing?
mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)oh wait, he did. Re-phrase, would have won big enough to not have the Supreme Court hand the election to Bush.
tblue37
(65,403 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)tblue37
(65,403 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)
and never spoke after the campaign. In fact, I seem to remember Lieberman being angry at Gore for not telling hims about something after the campaign, because he felt Gore should have told him as his former running mate. I don't remember specifics, just that Gore had no desire to reconnect with Lieberman after the campaign.
C Moon
(12,213 posts)In my life, I think he was the worst choice for VPfrom both sides. Well, Palin was bad. So I'll have to think about that.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)he had dynamic appeal. But compared to Lieberman Gore was positively a dynamo of personality. Lieberman actually came off as cartoonish.
Just imagine....a world that never had to experience President Dubya Bush. No 911, no Iraq War and no 2008 economic collapse. Maybe.
tblue37
(65,403 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Lieberman was a great friend of organized labor. A great friend. That's why I know he's a great guy.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Lieberman sucked up how much in donations from the insurance agency before becoming a party turncoat?
Oh, yeah. Like half a million or so.
http://www.insurancepuppets.com/puppets/joelieberman
In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it."
In August, Lieberman said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession."
In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it."
In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean "trouble ... for the national debt," by creating "a whole new government entitlement program."
In November, Lieberman called the public option a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past.
"But he was pro-labor, so that makes up for him backing the Heritage Foundation-authored, Romney-approved health care act that does nothing but line more insurance companies' pockets while not actually fixing all that much."
Gman
(24,780 posts)I don't care about much else. We could usually count on him. I don't need to learn the history. I was in his office making the history.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Fuck that guy, Lieberman used you like a rented mule.
Gman
(24,780 posts)How valuable to labor he was during his tenure.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)He then massively fucked you over, and took his payoff and left with Hadassah to count their millions gained from sticking it to you and every working man and woman in this nation.
Fuck both of them, one day I'll read their obits with great pleasure. Two people who put personal gain above all else.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)So what did that unholy marriage of business unionism and electoral politics really get us?
Gman
(24,780 posts)AFL-CIO affiliated union? If not you really can't say "we".
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)I am OPEIU in good standing. And an organizer and activist. And the daughter of a USW steelworker. The sister of a UBC carpenter.
And I call you Brother even if you a member of a non-AFL-CIO affiliated union (there are quite a few - SEIU and UBC for example) or are not even a union member. If we are in the fight together, you are my brother or sister, organized or not.
Our House is in shambles, and we are dying, but we are still one of the last great hopes. But every time we put our energies into electing some damned Pol who'll just turn around and screw us (Employee Free Choice Act anyone? Those comfortable shoes?) that hope dims a little more.
And no friend of the Vampire Insurance industry or the Ghoul Banksters is a friend of ours.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)There are many more. You see, we don't dwell on just one single issue. It's a big world out there.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)and Lieberman wasn't a friend of labor there either.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)What we REALLY need, more than anything is health care reform, not just insurance.
The plan I've laid out in each one of these threads I've come across for years, and have sent to my representatives:
Health insurance reform alone does not address the medical needs of the people who need health care the most. We need more hospitals, clinics, and hospital staff. We already have, right now, networks of charity hospitals, University hospitals, and free clinics. These have been getting pillaged and plundered by cost reductions for decades, but even so, you'd be hard pressed to find a single city in the US with a population of 150,000 or more that doesn't have some sort of free clinic/University/charity hospital available. That's the good news. The bad news.. these places are under staffed, under funded, and in such a dire state of affairs that nobody who is ill wants to be caught dead in them (or die in them as it would stand).
My proposal:
1. Infuse the funding for these places. Pick 10x military bases around the world that no longer serve a viable function, and redistribute the funds to support these facilities.
2. Just as the military has ROTC and various medical scholarships to fund the staffing of military hospitals, expand those programs for the civilian clinics and hospitals.
3. Path to success programs for inner city public school children, and public school children coming from low income families who show the best aptitude. Provide University programs for these children to be the next generation of Nurses, Dr.'s, PA's, Hospital administrators, and specialists. Tie to these degrees a requirement of a proportional number of years of required service at free clinics, and public health care facilities and hospitals at a reasonable salary.
SOOO many more benefits than just a health insurance reform. Available free, or cost controlled healthcare for all. A way out for poor families (if just one child of a struggling working poor family can make it in this program, this doesn't just help the kid but in most cases the entire family benefits!). A way for the free clinics/hospitals to actually become an appealing option for those who don't have the luxury of Cadillac healthcare plans.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)sufficient to provide healthcare to everyone.
Anything else is double-dipping the middle class and a free handout to the insurance industry.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I even state where more than enough money can come from without increasing taxes.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)I said nothing about tax increases.
Read much?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I do.
You set the subject as taxes, then add "anything else" which directly insinuates your issue is an increase in taxes.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)which means "other than taxes" is double dipping.
If you try to lead in with understanding rather than nastiness, you might comprehend more.
again, "read much?"
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)I was a "Medicare For All" guy.
Response to RiverLover (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..like Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln.
Former Chairman of the DLC, Joe Lieberman, had nothing to lose,
so he got to play Judas in the Kabuki Theater.
Lieberman Took One for Team DLC.
If not him, another Corporate Democrat would have been assigned to play the scapegoat.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)He was the best candidate because he had already decided to retire.
Response to bvar22 (Reply #24)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..for a TOS violation.
still_one
(92,219 posts)would never had gone for a public option r Medicare for all
It is not the best thing but better than what was before, and a start, an important start
In order for things to improve more progressives need to be in Congress
Not sure if that will happen soon since the country has been going right for some time.
Best recent examples are Iowa and Wisconsin
What the hell happened
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)
still_one
(92,219 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)threatened to filibuster his own proposal--Medicare expansion--just because he wanted to stick it to the left.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Even if you flip all the other blue dogs, Lieberman was never supporting a PO.
Here is why.
1) Lieberman campaigned against Obama knowing that if McCain had won, he would have been offered either SecState or SecDef in the McCain administration. These were Lieberman's dream jobs. Obama won, thus blocking Lieberman's preferred outcome. Being a vindictive little S**T, Lieberman was going to do what he could to screw Obama going forward.
2) Lieberman has already announced that he was not going to seek another term. Which means there was really no leverage to use to pressure him to support a PO. And he was pissed when he received a challenge from the left in the last election. Did I mention he's a vindictive S**T?
3) Lieberman (already known as the senator from Aetna), was never going to risk a 7 figure job at a think tank after leaving office by supporting a PO. Where is Lieberman now? In a 7 figure job in a think tank.
There is nothing Obama could have done to get a YES vote from Lieberman, even if he could flip the other 4 or 5 blue dogs.
It was never going to happen.
mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)The last arguments I had with my sister before she died suddenly and unexpectedly in June, 2008, were about scumbag Joe. She supported him, and worse, because she lived in Connecticut, voted for him in 2006, when he lost his primary and ran as an independent. I believe the health care debate and Lieberman's role in screwing us all would have finally changed her mind.
Demobrat
(8,982 posts)which is why I'll never understand why the Republicans hate it so much. If a Republican had passed it they would have loved it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)ideas farther to the right. Then they get to have the Dems vote in what the GOP actually wants.
It's long past time to get some Dems with some spunk in them instead of all these "leaders" who in actuality are being led themselves, by the GOP!!!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Just as our public school system is being sabotaged. Private insurers would've siphoned off the healthy folk, which would've left the government footing the bill for the highest risks. Meanwhile, Congress would've starved funding (just as they've done for Amtrak and the Post Office) in an effort to prove that government programs never work as well as private ones. That's why it was so important for them to avoid Single Payer, which would've proved exactly the opposite.
Rex
(65,616 posts)It should be a form letter. When was the last time Congress or the WH did not cave in to Big Biz? I've been told it's always been that way. I don't remember it being that way with Carter, but totally with Raygun. I've read Nixon is the original caver, but I bet it is usually and consistently Congress.
Do not fear! Magic Congress will one day arrive from the sky to save us!
I mean not today, but one day so keep your chin up.
Midnight Writer
(21,768 posts)Then he came out against it, effectively killing his own proposal.
Also, and I don't have a specific reference for this, as I recall his wife got a lucrative job as a "consultant" to a large health insurance company while the healthcare debate was ongoing.
Maybe some more internet savvy DU'er can help me with this.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)The Guardian
Dec 2009
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare
Midnight Writer
(21,768 posts)Too bad we have to go to the foreign press to find out what is going on in our own country.
Just started reading today Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Essentially a collection of articles American Palast published in British press because American media would not publish his work.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)why American politicians pushed aside single-payer, which would put insurance companies out of medical care. Having Medicare, a single-payer system, that works well enough meant that all that was necessary was to open the system to all Americans. No need for all the bull-shit. The insurance industry went ballistic; the politicians folded. Mission accomplished. Americans get to enjoy a shitty system while paying insurance companies and worrying about their health.
charles d
(99 posts)But did you have to show a pic of Joe Lieberman? I just had a late-night snack, f'Gawd's sake!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 07:14 AM - Edit history (1)
That is the reason we have no Public Option.The insurance industry must feel wanted.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)The Insurance industry could still find some niche, when you think about it. For example, it could focus on superduper and exclusive services for very wealthy individuals. But they would have to work for it.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Dwight42
(43 posts)Countries that signed on to NAFTA, GAT, and now TPP and Tipp will be sued over a single payer system as it undermines private healthcare ability to make a profit since single payer systems are much more efficient as proved by Medicare.
This is what happens when corporatist governments sell out our sovereignty so that CEO's of multinational corporations can suck every last cent out of the economies of countries stupid enough to fall for their trickle down BS and promises of temporary jobs which usually turn out to be short term gain for long term pain.
Here are but a few examples of how these ''free'' trade agreements are working for industry and the cost of national sovereignty.
Canada has been the target of over 70% of all NAFTA claims since 2005. Currently, Canada faces nine active claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments.
Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government. These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government and a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful.
The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 puts a chill on public interest regulation. Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.
Six times Canada had to pay foreign investors under NAFTAs Chapter 11:
1. Case: Ethyl Corp. (1997)
Amount awarded: US$13 million, out-of-court settlement.
What happened: The U.S. chemical company challenged a Canada-wide ban on import and trade of the gasoline additive MMT, a suspected neurotoxin. Following a preliminary judgement against Canada, the government repealed the ban, issued an apology and paid a settlement.
2. Case: S.D. Meyers (1998)
Amount awarded: CDN$6.05 million, plus interest and compensation.
What happened: The U.S. waste disposal firm challenged a temporary Canadian ban on the export of toxic PCB wastes, something the country was obliged to do under an international environmental treaty. The tribunal ruled that Canada violated standards of treatment under NAFTA.
3.Pope and Talbot (1998)
Amount awarded: CDN$870,000.
What happened: The U.S. lumber company challenged Canadas lumber export rules implemented under the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The tribunal ruled Canada violated NAFTAs minimum standards of treatment.
4. Mobil Investments/Murphy Oil (2007)
Amount awarded: Not yet determined, but damages continue to accrue as long as violating guideline in effect.
What happened: The oil investors argued that Canadas guidelines requiring energy companies to invest in research and development in Newfoundland and Labrador are inconsistent with NAFTA rules. The tribunal ruled in favour of the investors and Canada is liable to pay damages.
5. AbitibiBowater (2009)
Amount awarded: CDN$130 million in settlement the largest NAFTA-related settlement to date.
What happened: The pulp and paper company closed its last mill in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2008 and the provincial government enacted legislation to return its timber and water rights to the Crown and expropriate some of its lands and assets associated with water and hydroelectric rights. Abitibi was to be paid fair market value for the assets.The company launched a NAFTA claim and the government decided to settle without going to court.
6. St. Marys (2011)
Amount awarded: $15 million.
What happened: The company alleges its Canadian subsidiary was the victim of political interference when it tried to open a quarry near Hamilton, Ont., after residents grew concerned about the groundwater. The provincial government issued a zoning order preventing the site from being converted into a quarry and the company claimed that was unfair and discriminatory. The parties reached a settlement in 2013 that saw the company withdraw the claim in exchange for compensation from the Ontario government.
Source: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/nafta-chapter-11-investor-state-disputes-january-1-2015#sthash.zj0SyaUt.dpuf
arcane1
(38,613 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)at the outset by the Administration.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)"Politics is the art of the possible."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/obamacare-will-cover-about-19-million-people-year
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I seem to remember that, and being told half a loaf! After all that we got a slice or two, not even 1/4 of the loaf.