Sen Wyden -- 10 percent isn't really a public option

[Armstead]

Washington, D.C.-. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Reid’s decision to include a public option with an opt-out provision in the Senate health reform legislation:

“I agree with Senator Reid that health reform should give Americans more options. Now, I want to work with him to ensure that all Americans can choose those options. The bottom line is that the public option can’t really hold private insurers accountable if it is only competing for 10 percent of the insurance market, because private insurance companies aren’t going to change their business practices if 90 percent of their customers can’t take their business elsewhere. Real reform means empowering Americans to choose insurance that works well for them and their family, while rejecting plans that don’t. Including a public option is a step in the right direction, now let’s remove the firewalls in this bill that prevent Americans from choosing it.”

[tazkcmo]

1. Yay! n/t

[Hissyspit]

32. VIDEO Here from Rachel Maddow Show:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=394649&mesg_id=394649

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Wyden tells the truth so many others have forgotten.

[thunder rising]

3. I wish he had specified the items in the bill that make this statement true. Is it the opt-out or

something else?

[SpartanDem]

7. The HELP bill( S.1679)

the exchanges and therefore the public option is restricted to those without employer coverage and those coverage that doesn't meet affordablity requirements. This is not problem for individuals in the House bill(Hr 3200) it's open to everyone, but businesses access is very restricted.

B) EMPLOYEES WITHOUT AFFORDABLE COVERAGE- An individual who is eligible for employer-sponsored coverage shall be deemed to be a qualified individual under subparagraph (A) only if such coverage--

`(i) does not meet the criteria established under section 3103 for minimum qualifying coverage; or

`(ii) is not affordable (as such term is defined by the Secretary under section 3103) for such employee

[John Q. Citizen]

15. It's the way the bills are written. For a really good in depth analysis I suggest reading this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=411x178

If you start at the top and read them all you will know more than 95 per cent of most DUers about what's in the bills and what isn't in the bills.

You have to remember. The insurance industry has been on board for these so called "reforms" since January 2009. They went to all the White house meetings, they testified in all the committees, and they have been pumping millions to the Democrats.

The bill are written so that most people (the vast majority) won't be able to enroll in any public option. If people already get private insurrance, that's all they will be able to get. No public option for the vast majority of those. If people don't have insurance hbut can buy it from a private insureror, they won't be eligible to join the public option.

Only people who can't buy private insurance will be eligible to get inot the public option. And it won't nessisarily be cheaper than private insurance.

That is what Wyden is talking about.

[Armstead]

23. Something else

There will be a lot of restrictions on who will be able to take advantage of the po

[Clio the Leo]

4. What prevents a business from switching to a more affordably priced health care plan?

My employers seem to change companies with the wind ... so ..... nothing I'm guessing?

[John Q. Citizen]

17. There is nothing in the bills to make the public option cheaper. Level playing field was term.

So your employer will be able to buy from a different private carrier.

Just not from the public option, which might not be cheaper anyway.

[Clio the Leo]

19. Yeah, the public option might even be MORE expensive!

Because, no doubt, the President, and half of Congress are all trying to run a big scam on us. How could I forget.

[Oregone]

30. After a certain period of time, nothing, BUT

If the company does not do so, the employees are shit outta luck. You don't see that as a problem?

Imagine this as an opt-in, decided by wall street wizards and corporate execs. These people don't even have to worry about re-election. Why not give the people a loophole, and a cash-incentive to take it?

[Clio the Leo]

39. Are these hypothetical businesses not paying higher prices as well?

Would it not benefit them to switch to a private insurer that charged THEM less? The last time MY employer changed providers, they cited this very reason. They were able to buy from a company that provided an even better plan for less money. I then had less withdrawn from my check because of it.

[Oregone]

40. Do you think relying on every employer to pick the cheapest healthcare works?

Seems like ther would basically be but a single provider by now. :)

Come on now, thats silliness for an argument. What harm does this do while helping the individual? What is the potential harm caused by not doing it?

Seems like a pretty indefensible position, but correct me if I am wrong? The resistance to this is unfathomable

[Clio the Leo]

41. I'm relying on the notion that businesses are going to choose the plan...

.... that saves THEM the most money. Crazy I know.

How many members of Congress were willing to vote for single payer?

[Oregone]

42. But they do not now. What will change?

Isn't this like free market voodoo a bit? Depending on the best result to come naturally from free market factors?


Again. What potential harm does this cause to allow WORKERS to choose? What is the potential harm of not doing it?

[Clio the Leo]

44. They DO do it now.....

.... as I previously told you. Why would a business continue to add to high overhead by holding on to a provider that charges more when they can switch to one that charges less? If they find a window washing company that charges less than the one they have now, they'll switch. As long as the plan offered yields the same benefits, would would health care insurance be any different.

I dont disagree with you that, IDEALISTICALLY, allowing individuals to choose is a good idea. However, I see no PRACTICAL way that a bill proposing that plan could get passed in THIS Congress. Do you?

[Oregone]

45. No, they all don't

Some employers offer more expensive plans as incentives to workers. Some employers simply do not want to change every few months that the market rates change. And some employers are clueless, picking the most popular employer like BCBS instead of shopping around.

To say that employer choices suffice for providing the best and most choices for employees is a joke.

However, I see no PRACTICAL way that a bill proposing that plan could get passed in THIS Congress. Do you?

If this is the real objection, political reality, then its much simpler to cite it rather than try and oppose something that has minor potential issues and a ton of benefits.

Honestly, I don't know. Why would this cause centrists to flip? What ideological reason could they cite for opposing this if it put downwards pressure on prices, saves money, and gives consumers choices

[Clio the Leo]

46. Change every few months?

.... a little bit of exaggeration, don'tcha think? ;)

As for why centrists wouldn't support a broader plan ...... you got me .... it makes no sense to me either .... I would LOVE for the entire Congress to be behind what you're proposing full force. But the fact of the matter is we have (at least) two Democrats still holding out against what the rest of the Dem Senators have decided is acceptable. Now, if you can come up with a plan where we can get all 58 + 2 Senators in on something more progressive, like the President, I'm all ears.

[ProSense]

5. What's Wyden's suggestion?

He's all talk, but he doesn't really have a plan to change the equation. He is simply trying to sell his Free Choice Proposal

Why are the unions against his plan?

[harkadog]

10. The Unions are for their own members and fuck anyone else

[ProSense]

12. Wyden voted against adjusting doctors' fees.

He's for Wyden and fuck everyone else. His move is self-serving. He dragged his feet when it came to supporting a public option while he was pushing his free choice act. His bill sucks.

[SpartanDem]

13. It's the unions that are be self serving

this admendment has the potential to make this a much better bill

[ProSense]

18. Nonsense. Wyden wants people to free up people for the insurance market. Period. He claims

this is about a public option when it really isn't. It's about his BS proposal, which follows an almost identical availability schedule as the other bills.

[SpartanDem]

21. The Senate public option isn't even available to everyone

thanks to restrictions on the exchange Wyden's amendment would fix this and it would guarantee that all businesses have access to the exchange. Instead of saying it's government discretion at a future date.

[Oregone]

29. Nonesense. Have you actually read his plan?

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/091709free_choice_amendment.pdf

The availability schedule is a MINOR part of the plan (though its open to all after 3 years).

The plan essentially offers cash incentives for workers to choose cheaper exchange plans than their employer plan (the Public Option being one of them).

If an employer decides to offer multiple plans, but not an non-exchange plan, the cheapest still must be priced comparably (putting downward pressure on costs across the entire market).

But the bottom line is that it will often open the entire exchange and public option to employees, who do not meet exchange eligibility criteria. As a bonus, there is an incentive for the workers to choose that route.

Do you oppose opening the exchange/public option for covered employees (yes or no)? If not, what alternative amendment do you support to accomplish this?

[harkadog]

14. His bill may suck.

I don't know that much about it. But I am always suspicious of union views on social legislation because I don't think they look much beyond their own high paid membership.

[LooseWilly]

24. Unions may look after their own first... it is their function after all... but

when it comes to health insurance... as they've essentially been accepting stagnating "high paid" wages in exchange for attempts at slowing down the costs to membership for health benefits... anything they are for is liable to be something that will actually serve to control that health care cost stairway to the heavens...

Just saying...

Wyden's been talking a good game about opening up the Public Option to everyone from the get go... not sure either what his bill's specifics entail.

Dismissing union opinions out of hand because they have negotiated (usually) better pay for their members... seems to be a spot of anti-elitism that should rather be applied toward distrust of politicians and Wall street-ers... before being applied to unions. If you can't get past the anti-"elitism of the unions" though... I'd suggest analyzing potential commonalities you might share with the unions on a particular issue.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. What you call a public option, isn't. But don't let that slow you down.

[ProSense]

22. Year 5 - Open exchanges to all employers.

Transition to the Free Choice System:

Year 1- People who are currently in the individual market plus small employers with up to 10 workers and the uninsured have access to the exchange.

Year 2-- Add small employers with up to 25 workers to the exchange.

Year 3-- Give State Medicaid programs the choice to be in exchange.

Year 4-- Open up the exchange to medium sized employers with up to 250 workers using the Free Choice
approach.

Year 5 - Open exchanges to all employers.

link (PDF)

Wyden is all talk, he has no plan that changes the equation.

[Oregone]

26. Wyden Free Choice Admendment opens the exchange to all INDIVIDUALS

(as well as obligates the employer's to contribute under most circumstances)

Which is currently not on the table. I imagine you don't see that or don't care about that.

Why are you against true health reform?

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Senator Wyden represents the People of Oregon

one of whom is me, and I agree with him, and he with me. Where do you live? What is your source of Insurance? I know those things about Ron. I know I agree with him about the definition of the word option, which is a word with a meaning in the English language.
Wyden is my Senator and he is speaking for us. Who's your Senator? Does he or she speak for you? The greatest thing is, no matter how frothy you and yours get, you have no power to vote against our Senators. None at all. So shriek away, shout and call good Democrats bad things.

[Oregone]

37. "So shriek away, shout and call good Democrats bad things"

:)

+1

[Oregone]

25. You really don't think Americans should have more choice in their health care?

You honestly don't think everyone should have access to the exchange?!?



Way to show your true colors

[dreamnightwind]

28. Watch out...

he'll taser you! And then ask you to thank him for using non-lethal force when he could have just shot you or broken your arms.

[depakid]

6. A Potemkin Option's what that is....

Don't think that's what's going to happen because it's too craven even for the Dem leadership these days.

50 +1 says it'll be broader than that.

[SpartanDem]

9. Just like they would never put a public option in the Senate bill?

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. Wyden is saying here what Dr. Dean has been saying for months.

The entire POINT of a public option, is that its open to EVERYONE, and forces the corporate insurance whores to clean up their act, because they would then be competing for their business. And if they can't compete, then they go out of the health insurance business.

[depakid]

11. Dean also noted that there had better be something that kicks in well before 2013

As people had better see something useful for them in July 2010....

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Yeah, this delay of 4 or 5 years is ridiculous

Funding problem? I have the perfect three point solution:

1) End the useless occupations in Iraq AND Afghanistan.

2) Close all the tax loopholes

3) Roll back tax cuts for the rich to at least the pre-Reagan levels. Preferably the pre-JFK levels.

[andym]

27. To get a Robust Public Option, two things are needed

1) open the exchange and the associated public option to as many people as possible (Senator Wyden seems to be saying this in the OP)
2) tie the public option as close as possible to Medicare-negotiated rates

These versions should be lobbied for in both the Senate and the House.

[joeycola]

31. Here is Wyden's amendment.....

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/091709free_choice_amendment.pdf

[Hissyspit]

33. Thanks.

[ProSense]

43. That bill is literally

awful in comparison to the existing bills.

[Oregone]

47. That bill isn't a bill. Its an amendment to the existing bill

FYI

[mucifer]

35. but, if the other 90% loses our insurance we can get the public option.

[phleshdef]

38. Yea, having it available along with the other numerous reforms to private insurance makes for a good

...start. But many here are gonna continue crying until they get their single payer binky... and then find something else to cry about after that.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. In Beltway world, the word 'option' means something else

Option is a thing which can be freely chosen among alternatives. In Beltway Speak, an option is the last resort no one can select, a thing which is there when there are no alternatives. This desire to rework the language is objectionable on so many levels.
Public Option means everybody can opt for it. Freely.