Kent Conrad: Public Option "A Wasted Effort"

[Joe Bacon]

Source: Huffington Post

A public health insurance option took more hits Sunday as Sen. Kent Conrad described its pursuit as a "wasted effort" and an administration official said it is not an "essential" part of reform.

Conrad (D-N.D.), who supports setting up health insurance co-operatives with government seed money to compete with private insurers, described the public option as all but a lost cause.

More at http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-conrad-public-option-a-wasted-effort-2009-08-16.html

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/16/kent-conrad-public-option_n_260531.html

---

Thanks for selling us out, Conrad! Seems like your staffer lied when he said you were misquoted.

[MidwestTransplant]

1. How much does Contrad get in contributions from the insurance companies I wonder. No need to answer

[Orsino]

38. Link.

Big Insurance is not quite at the top of his list of contributors, but we can hardly doubt its influence.

[valerief]

2. I guess voting for Conrad is a wasted effort, too. nt

[fascisthunter]

3. another sellout corpocrat.... this should be used against him in the next election

to expose whose side he is on.

[tocqueville]

4. the answer is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNR_6UuVl4s

[WestSeattle2]

27. Gotta love the French system...thx for posting this link

[enlightenment]

5. I think the fact that a member of the Cabinet also indicated

that a public option wasn't 'essential' is very telling - and frankly, more disturbing than another D-Congresscritter jumping ship.

[dmosh42]

6. Bring on the whores! n/t

[jaxx]

7. He thinks people are grain.

Co-ops for farmers and he wants it for healthcare. Bogus.

[twitomy]

8. I'm willing to give a co-op a try...

it would be non-profit, and owned by the patients with govt start up funding. Not sure
how the insurance companies would benefit. I like the idea of the PATIENTS in charge of their healthcare system instead of the insurance companies or govt. Insurance companies dictating my benefits is bullshit. But the thought of these bozos in Washington deciding what my healthcare benefits will be scares the crap out of me. Give the power to the People!

[mbperrin]

9. Blue Cross Blue Shield started as a coop. My school district uses them.

Costs $625 a month for me and my spouse. No dental, no vision, no disability, no long term care, no cancer.

Good luck getting something out of them for what they say they will cover.

Single payer universal is the only solution that will not morph into more of the same.

[cadaverdog]

43. This the Blue cross/Blue Shield you are talking about?

Aug 14
From the Detroit News
State insurance regulators have approved a request Thursday by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to hike rates by an average of 22 percent on about 163,000 policies bought by people who pay for their own medical insurance.

The approved increase is less than the original request from Blue Cross, which would have hiked monthly premiums on its non-group policies an average of 56 percent and its group-conversion policies an average of 41 percent.


Among a number of things that are disgusting about the progress, or lack thereof, on the health care bill is that it is being held hostage by half a dozen senators (including Kent Conrad) who represent only 2.7% of the population of the entire country! These six are saying, "Jump" and the administration is saying, "How high?" WTF!!?

[mbperrin]

50. Yep! That's the one!

Goin' up!

[Joe Bacon]

10. Health coops have a track record of failing

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1906105,00.html

Early adopters of the co-op idea point to two existing, large-scale, nonprofit health-care cooperatives as models: Group Health and Health Partners, nonprofit HMOs based in Seattle and the Twin Cities, respectively. Both co-ops have solid reputations in the health-care-policy world, generally offering high-quality care at costs lower than those on the commercial market. They do this by offering both health insurance and health services — each HMO has its own network of staff physicians and free-standing hospitals and clinics. This allows Group Health and Health Partners to integrate and better control costs — a huge advantage that state-based health-insurance cooperatives would have almost no chance of replicating.

But apart from Group Health and Health Partners, the history of nonprofit HMOs is littered with failures. In the 1990s, a similarly set-up nonprofit HMO in the Washington, D.C., area called Group Health Association was forced to sell itself to Humana, a private insurance company, after its finances deteriorated to the point of insolvency. GHA, which had about 130,000 members, was plagued by falling membership rolls, strikes by staff doctors and nurses and competition from other HMOs. Before being acquired by Humana, GHA even tried to transform itself into a for-profit HMO to stop the bleeding. A partnership between two nonprofit HMOs in New York, Group Health Inc. and Health Insurance Plan of New York, is currently seeking state approval to do the same thing — turn itself into a for-profit company to raise capital. (Watch a video on uninsured Americans.)

According to Jacob Hacker, a political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, rural health cooperatives established after the Great Depression were disbanded, in part, because they were badly managed and were opposed by the physician community, the same factors that spelled death for GHA. "The history of cooperative is that it's very hard to set these things up, and while we're trying to set them up, there's not going to be accountability and pressure ," says Hacker. "They would be weakest when they're most needed — at the outset." In addition, cooperative health policies would not be portable, meaning if you had one and moved to another state, you would need to drop coverage and enroll elsewhere. Rates could also vary dramatically, depending on regional differences in health costs and the size and makeup of co-op pools.

Assuming state-based health co-ops could offer lower premium costs by being nonprofit and creating large risk pools, an equally crucial question is when they would be created. Even with federal seed money, setting up 50 co-op boards, signing up enough members to make each co-op viable and establishing administrative systems to set premium rates and pay claims would not happen overnight. "The principle of eliminating some of the profit motive and placing it with the motive to get value out of care is a good principle," says Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan health-policy think tank. "But there are a lot of ifs, and it's not a strategy for a nation in an economic crisis when we need a solution soon."

[tooeyeten]

15. not buying the co-op pools are good

They are not public option, that's good.

[twitomy]

22. So there are SOME successes.....

and the ones that fail do so because of lousy management. Good. They should fail. Just like the Banks. But if it is govt run and it is in trouble, it is not allowed to fail. Just milk the people some more. Is not medicare running out of money? Hmm sounds like lousy management to me. But of course we wont let it fail. A co-ops members can affect change more directly than thru the Congress.

These co-ops should be formed not to provide insurance but to provide the care in an integrated
manner similar to the Bilings Clinic, which has been a huge success.

Heres how I would do it:

Each Co-op chartered would be given a big enough grant to get the facilities built and managed. (hows that for a stimulus?) Each co-op would have doctors as employees (like the Billings Clinic) A ISO standard similar to what is done with Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) would build established to allow sharing of medical records between the co-ops. Each co-op has a board of directors elected by the members. Each co-op would have a degree of tort protection. Each co-op would be regulated by the Feds. When one retires, the Medicare would simply pay for the memebership fees, thereby drastically all the bureacracy and expense of handling the medicare system. Those who become unemployed will have their membership paid for by the Welfare/Unemployment programs. Now we have just vastly reduced the Medicaid bureacracy costs. Each employer instead of having to find and shop for insurance every year, can simply make a contribution towards the co-op membership fees. (Not sure if there should be a min or not) A married couple can have each of their employers contribution combined to pay the one co-op they belong to. No more couples with duplicate insurance, and gives portability. So you can stay with your co-op whomever you work for. Each new member of a co-op entitles the co-op with a lump sump subsidiy from the govt to help pay for the expense of any pre-existing condition wehter there is any pre-existing condition or not. So as to discourage people from jumping all around, this subsidy is only given on behalf of a new member once every several years. Co-ops cannot refuse any member if they have not "blown" their subsidy unless they have moved out of thier co-ops coverage regions

Im just looking for solutions that are not wedded to ideology, but rather effectiveness. Beleive me, I really do not like the insurance companies in the middle. They take as in as much as they can, and pay out as little as they can. Bloodsuckers. But I am not yet convinved a govt run system is going to be much better.

[Joe Bacon]

24. Good luck on getting the start up money.

Since Baucus and Conrad are bought and paid for by the insurance racketeers, they will make sure to co-opt the co-ops and make them as weak as possible.

[tooeyeten]

31. merely the suggestion of co-ops

is a clear indication of the power of the insurers and their lobbyists, any kind of real competition is off the table. Moeny rules!

[twitomy]

35. Yep Im afraid your right....

One more reason I cant stand most politicians...bought and paid for..

[tooeyeten]

30. do not see

that risky co-ops are the answer to our current problems with health care coverage.

[twitomy]

37. Well Im not afraid to think outside the box...

I think a govt run plan is risky too...

I think it does address many of the issues with healthcare:

1.Tort expense is limited
2.Integration reduces overhead and produces better results (proven by the Billings Clinic)
3.The insurance company profits are squeezed out as they are no longer involved.
4.Potability is provided
5.Employer burden is reduced
6.Medicare/Medicaid administration costs are reduced
7.Uninsured becasue of poverty is reduced as govt picks up the tab
8.Patients ("members") have a say in the Coop operations

Whats wrong with a pilot program?

[PSPS]

26. Spare us the right-wing talking points please

A co-op is doomed to fail because it can never have a sufficient risk pool.

Furthermore, your assertion that "bozos in Washington" would "decide" what "my healthcare benefits will be" is pure nonsense. All of the proposals that have any kind of public option simply establish a floor of minimum benefits that all policies, both private and "public," must provide. You'd still be able to buy extra coverage from the private market if you felt you needed more coverage.

I'd rather have an elected official, who must answer to me, to go to if I had a gripe about my coverage. Today's reality is you take what you're given and, if your private insurer weasels out of its responsibility, as their adjusters are paid bonuses to do, you have a choice: Go to the fatcat CEO's office and get arrested, or go home and die.

Today's system is designed simply to make a profit for shareholders, pay executives millions (sometimes billions) of dollars, and funnel bribes "campaign contributions" to republicans.

[twitomy]

56. How can it *never* have a sufficient risk pool?

Be specific. Show me the math. All you have is name calling.

We have govt insurance for the elderly called medicare. There are things they wont pay for. Why not? Seniors still need to get "supplemental" insurance. Why is that? How come doctors are refusing to take medicare? (Because reimbursements suck). Medicare is running out of money. Why is that? Answer: Politicans are in charge. Our politicians are bought and paid for and dont give a rats ass about us "little people".

Im not for "co-op insurance" which is what is in the news. I am for co-op integrated health care PROVIDERS. But dont worry. Fat chance it will ever happen. See previous reason.

[Alcibiades]

28. BCBS is a non-profit

And a virtual monopoly here in NC, with 72% of group coverage and over 99% of the individual market.

The regulations for the coops would be written by this Congress, who are in the pocket of the insurance industry. Guess whose interests they would favor?

Can we even get the "trigger" back on the table?

[fascisthunter]

45. enough with the right wing talking points

it's not working

[Doremus]

53. Very little power in a tiny co-op.

Which is exactly the reason they're being considered.

[sasquatch]

11. I hope you enjoy your retirement Conrad

[tooeyeten]

17. doubtful

his constituency is more moderate, and that's who he's playing to, besides those insurance companies that contributed the $100s of thousands to his campaign.

[dakota_democrat]

29. On top of that,

There's no one that could beat him in a Democratic primary, he polls extremely well up here, and even the Republicans in ND are closet Socialists (I'm not saying that's a bad thing per se), so the idea of member owned health insurance will probably appeal to them.

[tooeyeten]

32. he's primary proof

of course he's arrogant and pushing back against real reform in the health care insurance industry. It's a two-fer.

[Frank Booth]

12. I'm so sick of these corporate whore DINOs. How did we get stuck with people

like Conrad, Obama, Shuler and Baucus controlling the show anyway?

[tooeyeten]

18. the system is the problem

lobbyists representing insurance companies and big pharma have the big bucks to squelch real reform.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. If the GOP will NEVER vote for any reform

then what is it exactly that makes this whitewash reform all that is possible? If they will not vote for any reform, why not let them vote against what we really want? They're never going to support it, as you said, but somehow you insist that their presence alone means real reform is not possible?
This is a train of thought I can not follow. They will NEVER vote for it, so we can only do what they want, and no more. Because they still won't vote for it?
How does that work, exactly?

[Joe Bacon]

19. We're 0 for 9

in 1912, Teddy Roosevelt called for National Health Insurance and Wilson took him to the cleaners for wanting to "regulate everything"

In 1933, FDR tried for Health Insurance and he too gave up. He got half a loaf called Social Security

In 1949, Truman tried for Health Insurance and Baxter & Associates tarred him with "Socialized Medicine"

In 1961, Kennedy failed to pass Medicare

In 1965, Johnson had to settle for another half loaf called Medicare and Medicaid

In 1974, we tried again to pass the single-payer Kennedy-Griffiths act, then Kennedy abandoned single payer and worked with Wilbur Mills for another watered down version of health insurance reform that got torpedoed. Hell, I remember that battle, I fought in it. I still remember when the AMA actually proposed "Medicredit" which would assist people based on how much they paid in taxes.

In 1994, not only did Hillary get torpedoed by that liar Andrew Sullivan, but his pals Harry and Louise finished the job on the Federal level. So here in California, we fought for single payer proposition 104, which got shot down after the health insurance racketeers poured 100 million into the state to kill it.

In this decade, twice we've passed single payer in California only to be hit with a veto from Arnold the Asshole

Now Obama has sold us out

It's 0 for 9. Game over. We've lost.

[qazplm]

14. but but but...we have 60 votes, right?

I mean that's what what everyone keeps saying.

[Joe Bacon]

20. What did Bernie say?

"We were told we need 60 Senators to get health care passed. Now we are told we need more. How many more? 70? 80? 90?"

[qazplm]

23. no one has said that we need more than 60

but we need at least 60 and we barely have 50.

[quaker bill]

25. No, we have 60 seats

that will on occasion provide 60 votes. 60 seats does not equal 60 votes, never did.

[Zorra]

41. 60 minus the Bush Dog DINOrats = ?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. Uh...Speaking of wasted efforts

I guess if you're a Democratic voter in North Dakota you know JUST HOW THAT FEELS!

[MasonJar]

33. Time to replace Conrad and Baucus and Nelson. We have enough

dems in the Senate to keep a majority even if the GOPers pick up these seats. What good are they?

[grantcart]

46. Atleast take their chairmanships away.

[defendandprotect]

34. Why wouldn't we target Conrad the next time around?????????????

Make sure that we get a liberal/progressive Dem in office?????????

[Scarsdale Vibe]

36. Conrad needs to say which Dems will filibuster a public option.

Until a Democrat says they are going to filibuster a public option, it's still on the table. And if one does, take away all their committee chairs. No reason to have someone in the party if they won't even vote for cloture.

[EndElectoral]

39. I'm becoming ashamed of sellouts like Conrad.

[swilton]

40. There Goes the Health Care Reform

And down the tubes with it the thought that any candidate from the Democratic Party would ever get my vote - every one of them is bought and paid for. The most vocal but minority, weapon-carrying protesters from the religious right have won the day.

[robcon]

42. Maybe you should go on another board...

swilton: "And down the tubes with it the thought that any candidate from the Democratic Party would ever get my vote "

I think if you're not going to vote Democratic, why are you on Democratic Undergound.

Vote for whomever you want... but this board is for Democrats, and those who support Democrats.

[Mythsaje]

48. This is exactly why they feel safe selling us out again and again...

They know that no matter what happens there are those who'd cheerfully lick the blood from their boots while they're kicking them to death.

What value loyalty if it only flows one way?

[Arkana]

44. Arkana: Kent Conrad "A Waste of Perfectly Good Ape Sperm"

[SomeGuyInEagan]

47. God calls Kent Conrad a "Wasted effort." Considers smiting him. (n/t)

[Vidar]

49. Kent Conrad--waste of oxygen.

[Tippy]

51. What kind of a Democrat do you want to see in office?

A Yellow Dog or a Blue Dog?....Once upon a time there was little difference...now there is a big difference...I for one am tired of voting for the lessor of two evils. Blue Dogs are not true Liberals, never have been nor will they ever be. When the DLC was organized is where it all began.

[tonekat]

52. The Dems are Doing it Again!

By which I mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! They blow it every time! And this time really early in the first year!

By now everyone knows the secret to the GOPs success, they hold their noses and join together on what they're told to. The Dems? They split into factions and pretty much hand it to the other team. What the heck did I bother voting for if they're just going to fold up like a cheap lawn chair?

You can bet if they get kicked out of office, the GOP will do what it takes to make it super difficult if not impossible for them to ever be in the White House again!

I'm disgusted.

[silverweb]

54. FU, Conrad!

Toadie.

[blindpig]

55. He might have a point.

Trying to reform capitalism, and that's what this is, is pretty futile when the capitalists hold all of the cards.

What we are seeing is how the whole crooked game is run. They own the government and the media, it hasn't been this blatant in a hundred years.

[Overseas]

57. Maybe we can waste more effort in opposing conrad's next primary.

The coops are a way to delay and privatize national health.

Dear Rick Scott, former CEO of United Healthcare when it incurred the largest fines in history for Medicare fraud, backs those coops.


How conveeenient for healthcare profiteers to get "seed money" from the government to run the clinics with their wonderful management style of our current hospitals.

Gosh, they've shown how very responsible they can be with our healthcare dollars; let's give 'em a whole network of coops to run. Yeah! $17 aspirin for all! :sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

58. Kent Conrad is a waste of skin (n/t)