Huffpo: White House Thinks Trigger Option More Progressive Than Opt-Out

[flpoljunkie]

Really?

White House Thinks Trigger More Progressive Than Opt-Out

Mark Whitaker

The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner
First Posted: 11-11-09

According to NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker, some in the White House -- and on Capitol Hill -- think a 'triggered' public option is preferable to an opt-out plan, regardless of political realities.

"There is a view I have been hearing from the White House, and people on the Hill as well, that actually the compromise that Olympia Snowe favors, which is the trigger, is actually more robust -- to use the progressive term -- than the opt-out," Whitaker told David Shuster on MSNBC Wednesday afternoon. "What I'm hearing from some top aides working on health care in the White House is that they actually think ultimately the trigger may be more effective in driving prices down and creating competition and they were actually surprised when Olympia Snowe started to propose it."

The White House pushed for the Senate to choose a triggered public option, which would only come into effect if the insurance industry failed to meet certain benchmarks. Public option advocates saw the compromise as basically no public option at all. At the time, it seemed the Obama administration was merely bending to political realities. Now, they apparently think the trigger is better policy, whether or not it increases the health care bill's chances at passing the Senate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/white-house-thinks-trigge_n_354380.html

[polichick]

1. Except that triggers never happen - so it's just bogus. nt

[crazylikafox]

2. +1

[wryter2000]

20. Exactly

If the White House believes this, they're fools. I don't believe they're fools.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Ever notice how, when a washing machine starts the spin cycle...

... often it simply lopsides, making a horrible crashing sound in your laundry room, knocking baskets and containers of slippery and caustic liquids on the floor?

Don't you hate that?

[Robbins]

4. Trigger

PO with Trigger Is a sideshow.It will never be used.Look I support Obama as much as anyone on this
board but all the excepting Liberals to Compromise to Conservatives,and they never Compromising once
Is getting real old.Snowe no longer even supports the trigger.Health care reform Is starting to
become a giveaway to insurance Companys.And you expect to trust the Insurance companys?

[geek tragedy]

5. I disagree, from everything I've read.

If they have an argument as to why non-existent public option would do more than a real one, they should, you know, provide the rationale. Because it doesn't pass the smell test right now.

[flpoljunkie]

9. I agree. Provide the rationale for a trigger--if you can.

[geek tragedy]

11. Here's what I suspect the answer would be:

The public option won't be able to compete very well, because the insurance companies could just operate at a loss to starve it to death and they could also cherry pick to stick it with only the sickest and most expensive to insure people.

[Orangepeel]

33. theoretically, it depends on what the trip points are

I wish we weren't going to have any conditions, and, if we do, I'd prefer an opt-out (although a trigger is preferrable to an opt-in).

But I can guess at the rationale. If there is a trigger, insurance companies will stay just on the other side of the line that would activate it. If the circumstances that would trigger the public option are more consumer friendly than a less robust public option, the trigger would be more progressive. The devil of course, would be in the details of that.

[Cha]

6. More unsubstantiated controversary

in the form of tainted red meat to throw out there.

[DrToast]

7. *cough* *cough* Bullshit! *cough*

*ahem* Sorry.

[ProSense]

8. "Now, they apparently think the trigger is better policy...

whether or not it increases the health care bill's chances at passing the Senate."


:rofl:

[Cha]

14. Dawg, you're

good at the pesky details:rofl:

[Bleacher Creature]

10. How much worse does the situation have to get for the trigger to be pulled?

The point of doing health care reform now is that the symbolic trigger has already been pulled.

[optimator]

12. in other words they are OUT OF TOUCH

with progressives, and they are ignorant of what will actually drive down prices and creating competition.

[Cha]

15. No, IOW..BULLSHIT.

[ClarkUSA]

13. I saw the interview. When Whitaker was asked directly whether it was the President who wanted...

... this, he paused, couldn't answer the question, then pivoted and said it was unnamed "top aides" he spoke to.
He gave me the impression he was a trying to stir the pot with some vague "story" scoop.

Whatever.

I've seen so much secondhand unnamed source reporting on this issue that unless I hear it from named and credible
sources other than mediawhore reporters, I'll think "stories" like this one is from MSM reporters trying to get their
day in the MSM sun (or HuffPo). Think ABC's Jake Tapper.

[Demoiselle]

16. Bingo...

"I've been hearing from SOME in the White House and on the Hill..." Oh please. I get so sick of press types playing to their own egos by manufacturing how "inside" they are..
Some say some say....NUTS! (That's what I say.)

[ClarkUSA]

25. Yeah, the weasel words "some in the WH" set my BS meter off.

<<Oh please. I get so sick of press types playing to their own egos by manufacturing how "inside" they are..>>

Exactly right.

[Cha]

17. It's a Plague..too bad we don't have a "mediamatters" on

DU that file all these mediawhoreswhoppers so they could be whipped out at a moment's notice!

[ClarkUSA]

28. How many times this year have we heard total BS from reporters w/"unnamed top WH sources"?

And HuffPo falls for it everytime when Politico doesn't. Both make their living off of sensationalist online story hits.

[Cha]

30. The latest before this(I think..hard to keep up) was

the cbs report, et al..stating PO was unequivocally sending "40,000 troops to Afghanistan".

And, boy was it red meat on this board.

[ClarkUSA]

32. That's right. DU's idiots are still gnawing on that bone. They fall for this media BS everytime.

:wtf:

[Cha]

35. Yeah, once they get started you can't

stop it with facts even if you yell FIRE!!

[ClarkUSA]

37. And they spend their spare time unrec'ing OPs that conflict with their Failer agenda.

For example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8750516&mesg_id=8750516

Haters/Failers are such predictably childish twits, aren't they?

[Cha]

38. The California Nurses..I know I Rec'd that one.

They're a regular force of Failure on DU.

[ClarkUSA]

39. "They're a regular force of Failure on DU." So true. But I'm sure they're winners in real life.

:eyes:

[flpoljunkie]

18. If the 'top aide' was Rahm Emanuel, believe it.

The White House has said all along they like Olympic Snowe's 'trigger' option. It would have to be one hell of a 'trigger option' to keep the insurance companies honest.

[ProSense]

21. Sorry, this is a big clue that this is complete bullshit

"...whether or not it increases the health care bill's chances at passing the Senate."

Yeah, "some in the WH" are suddenly uninterested in passing a bill in the Senate. They're more interested in supporting a policy that has no support.

Also didn't Obama just go to the House to drum up support for a bill with a public option?

[flpoljunkie]

23. A bill without a public option would not have passed in the House.

We will see. I hope Whitaker's wrong.

[ProSense]

26. But it did. That doesn't explain

the inconsistency I pointed out. Why would anyone in the WH be willing to support a policy that cannot pass in the Senate (which is exactly what he statement cited implies)?

[flpoljunkie]

48. There is a public option in the House bill, altho it's not the 'robust' Medicare+5%.

Which option is more likely to be filibustered in the Senate--the opt-out public option or the trigger? I also think the White House believes they are more likely to get a 'trigger' through the Senate.

[flpoljunkie]

49. Dupe!

[ClarkUSA]

29. Whitaker didn't say but he also couldn't say that the President was for a trigger when asked. nt

[vaberella]

59. Top Aide? Do you have a name or throwing out presumptions and accusations for a stick?

You don't have a name, you don't have this confirmed anywhere else and you're basing it on Huffpo statements which are getting debunked left and right.

[uponit7771]

42. +1!!!!!

[vaberella]

58. Too many dirty dealers. Too many, thanks ClarkUSA. n/t

[ej510]

19. I think Obama believes this the only way to pass health care reform

in the senate.

[flpoljunkie]

24. May be, although Lieberman doesn't like a trigger, either.

You know anything that lessen insurance company profits Lieberman is against.

[vaberella]

60. Did Obama tell you this? Are you the unnamed Top Aide we didn't know about?! n/t

[TomCADem]

22. How Long Before The So-Called Trigger, Gets Triggered?

I've read some reports that it is in 2013 while others say that the trigger is pretty immediate. The idea is to use the trigger as a stick to force an immediate ceiling on insurance rates. What's the timing?

[FrenchieCat]

27. So NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker

is a source now.

How interesting.....that nowdays, journalists are quoted as sources.

I don't remember this set up as being an acceptable source for a story,
when I took that journalism class years ago. Must be a new thing.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Unnamed 'top aides' were his source.

[vaberella]

61. Between them and CBS, they're the new President and Vice-President.

Their words are prized as gold here on DU.

[backscatter712]

34. The trigger's effectiveness depends on its conditions.

In other words, the $64,000 question is: What are the conditions that would cause the trigger to be triggered, and cause the public option to activate?

Being justifiably cynical bastards, we operate under the (almost always correct) assumption that a trigger would be engineered to never be triggered, and have no effect on the behavior of the insurance companies.

But in theory, the trigger conditions could be made tough enough that the insurers would be forced to choose between cleaning up their act or facing competition from the public option.

As for whether a real, actual, tough trigger could be implemented, well, I doubt it. We all know that the legalized bribery game in the Beltway will ensure that any trigger that actually makes it into law will be a joke.

Now here's a strategy: If we are stuck with a trigger, what we should be doing is a multi-stage strategy. Stage one would be initial passage of health care reform, which under these assumptions, would have a trigger that would be mostly useless. Stage two would be to immediately start some academic studies, building of political support, and campaigning intended to tighten the trigger. Because modifying an existing law is much easier than the wholesale reform we're attempting right now, we very well might be able to engineer enough pressure to get insurers to behave themselves by constantly demanding tightening of the trigger, and keeping them under threat.

[Thrill]

36. Depends on when the trigger kicks in and if the rates are the same as medicare

.

[andym]

40. Well if the trigger was for Medicare for All

and the trigger conditions were harsh-- a medical loss ratio of at least 90-95% AND no increase in premiums over todays rates then it could be very progressive.

Would Congress agree to that?

[backscatter712]

41. See my post a couple above yours.

The reason why the trigger won't work is precisely because Congress will water it down, make it so complex nobody can understand it, make the conditions so vague or loose that they'll never be reached, and the result will be a joke.

It is theoretically possible to make a trigger with teeth, but the hard part is getting Congress to pass it...

[flpoljunkie]

52. The medical loss ratio was 95% back in the early 90's when Clinton plan was being debated.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was spent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

For example, if one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

[uponit7771]

43. ****ANOTHER BULLSHIT SLOPPY ASS'D M$M STORY "TOP AIDES" MEANS PULL OUT OF ASS***

[Bluesbreaker]

44. What a disappointment

I've slowly come to the realization that we were sold a bill of goods. I can't think of a single time, Obama has sided with the little guy (the natural constituency of the Democratic Party) over corporate interests. We see it in the treatment of Goldman Sachs and all of the Wall Street banksters, we see with the Pharmaceutical companies, and the insurance companies (yes, they are happy as clams that Obama is mandating everyone buy health insurance). The list goes on. This administration is so far from what I was anticipating, I feel like I've been cheated.

[Bluesbreaker]

45. What a disappointment

I've slowly come to the realization that we were sold a bill
of goods. I can't think of a single time, Obama has sided with
the little guy (the natural constituency of the Democratic
Party) over corporate interests. We see it in the treatment of
Goldman Sachs and all of the Wall Street banksters in the
bailouts (they caused millions to lose their jobs, yet the
perpetrators remain in theirs), we see it with the
Pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies (yes,
they are happy as clams that Obama is mandating everyone buy
health insurance). The list goes on. This administration is so
far from what I was anticipating, I feel like I've been
cheated.

[Baltoman991]

46. Take that

shit back to freeperville.

Perhaps your sad ass has been sold a "bill of goods" but I and many others know exactly what we were getting.

When you said "I can't think of a single time Obama has sided with the little guy", you should have just stopped with "I can't think" because your post above is not that of someone who can think.

[Cha]

55. Sorry, that says more about your thinking

process than it does about how much our President has accomplished.

Clue..you're not thinking Hard Enough.

[quantass]

47. I called it back in August (and i hate being right about this).

I was hoping at least the final compromise would be the opt-out (something i could live with) but i had always predicted since August it would end up being a trigger since it seems clear the WH has corporations to look after. What a shame.

I also hate to admit that i was so confident in that belief that i took out several contracts on predictive sites that the final bill will end up having a trigger. It is not too late for it to be something else (which i hope since in this case i'd rather lose money for the sake of a quality bill) but it is quite remarkable how consistent the WH is in pushing their hopes to empower big pharma and the insurance companies....btw, all their stocks are up this year and continuing to grow. I own a few of their stocks too and have made profit.

[Cass]

50. Dupe

[Cass]

51. How much worse does it have to get before a public option kicks in?

We are at a crisis point right now. 45,000 people die annually year because they don't have access to adequate health care and the leading cause of bankruptcies is due to medical costs.

If that isn't enough trip the trigger, what will?

[Vinca]

53. If Republicans are in the majority when the trigger is supposed to kick in,

it will be disappeared in 15 minutes or less. How about a public option with a trigger that would let private insurance kick in if the public option doesn't work?

[flpoljunkie]

54. We don't know what kind of trigger would be acceptable to the administration nor do we know how

Olympia Snowe's trigger would work. The devil is, indeed, in the details.

I have deep reservations that a trigger would work to 'keep the insurance companies honest' and 'bend the cost curve.'

[UnseenUndergrad]

56. Correct me if i'm mistaken...

but wasn't this same talking-point/rumour trotted out months ago?

[vaberella]

62. DING, DING, DING!!! Recirculated shit to make it stick.

DUers fall for it regularly.

[vaberella]

57. Please, please don't do this. Huffpo is a shill at this point.

They post Drudge Report crap and run it as though real. Secondly, I'm not taking unnamed sources unless confirmed and named elsewhere.

[TheKentuckian]

63. The only reason a trigger (or even no PO, about the same thing) might be more

progressive is when/if the whole thing crashes we will be like we begged, pleaded, and cried for a public plan and you idiots and/or assholes wouldn't have it and now we have continued to be screwed while allowing people to die and have their lives destroyed.

It would have to be hardcore message discipline regardless of any ups and downs but I suspect within a few years the pressure for no less than a wide open public option would be pretty intense.

That might be a real calculation, if all we can get is a sliver right now then get as many people as you can some help and bitch like your hair is on fire from now until the "I told you so" factor gets hot and get a real bite. Kind of a compromise position between "Kill Bill" and what about all these people that are pretty much totally fucked, the ER will get you stable but if you need some ongoing treatment it might be a wrap for ya.

If an option gets through that is too weak and firewalled to work its quite a bit worse than not getting a public plan at all. Its a thin line because it sounds like by the end of year three (or six, if you count from now) a pretty sizable chunk of the country could be in the exchange. 100 and less plus anyone that has ever been enrolled remains eligible will add up fast to pools at least to get that market to parity with the rates big corporations get thats probably enough to make a public program viable.

There's still potential for this bill to improve on the status quo but if it gets to the point that the PO is designed to fail then its better to let it (and by extension all government insurance) stay out of the muck.