Won't Get Fooled Again?- “Public option” bait-and-switch campaign

[Orwellian_Ghost]

“Public option” bait-and-switch campaign fools pollsters
Posted by Andrew Coates MD on Monday, Oct 19, 2009
By Kip Sullivan, JD

The New York Times reported on Saturday, October 17, that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is warning his constituents that the “public option” is not going to be available to the great majority of Americans. No one who has actually read the Senate health committee’s “reform” bill or the House “reform” bill (HR 3200) disputes this. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “option” will be available only to about 30 million people, or about one American in ten. As the Times put it (slightly inaccurately), the “option” in the Democrats’ legislation “would be out of bounds to the approximately 160 million people already covered through employers.”

Does the public understand this? According to Wyden, they don’t. Wyden says his constituents are shocked when they are told the “option” will not be available to the vast majority of Americans. When he began informing his constituents about this truth last summer, “They nearly fell out of the bleachers,” he said (“And the public option is….,” New York Times, October 17, 2009, A10).



Democrats and “option” advocates should pay attention to Wyden’s observation. Wyden is saying, in so many words, that “option” advocates, with help from the media and the blogosphere, have fooled the public into thinking everyone will be eligible to buy insurance from the “option,” and when the public finds out this isn’t true, they’re not going to be happy.

I was not surprised by Wyden’s observation. I have written several papers warning the public that they have been the object of a “bait and switch” campaign by the leadership of the “option” movement. The “bait” in this campaign was the original version of the “option” promoted by Jacob Hacker. This version would have created an enormous public program that would have insured half the non-elderly population. Among several provisions of this first version of the “option” that would have ensured large size was one that said the “option” had to be available to all non-elderly Americans. The “switch” occurred when Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and three chairmen of House committees drafted legislation that would create a very small and weak “option.” One of the provisions in the Democrats’ legislation that ensured their version of the “option” would be weak was a provision limiting subsidies and eligibility for the “option” to a small fraction of the population, namely, the uninsured and employees of small firms.

...

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/19/

Public option likely to be managed by private insurance company

By John Byrne
Saturday, October 24th, 2009 -- 7:31 am


A little-noticed tidbit in Saturday's Washington Post is sure to raise eyebrows among liberal supporters of a gorvernment-run healthcare plan: the plan is likely to be administered by a private insurance company, the very companies that progressive activists are trying to unseat.

The public-option debate is frustrating some Democrats, who have come to believe that a government-run plan is neither as radical as its conservative critics have portrayed, nor as important as its liberal supporters contend. Any public plan is likely to have a relatively narrow scope, as it would be offered only to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer.

The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy. In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan.

...

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/public-option-managed-private-insurance-company/

[fascisthunter]

1. what a bunch of real fuckers they are

[zeemike]

2. That is funny

You have a public option that is not available to the public at large and you hire the same people that spent millions to oppose it to run it....makes sense to me.....not.

[Libertas1776]

3. "Public option likely to be managed by private insurance company"

WTF!!! A private insurance Co. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT PUBLIC???? And for only a couple million people?

What the hell is the point of all this bullshit reform then? I' tell you what it's for, so the fucking politicians can pat themselves on the back and say "hey, we did something." If this comes to pass, then I wash my hands of the Democratic Party. If this comes to pass, then FUCK the Democrats and Fuck Obama and his bullshit "reform!"

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[a kennedy]

4. "Public option likely to be managed by private insurance company"

Is this true??? :cry: :cry: :cry: I am just so confused.

[dana_b]

7. yes

posted today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4117592

[maryf]

13. They want to confuse you...

Obfuscation is the order du jour: Healthcare NOW single payer advocacy group moniker gets co-opted by public option folks as Health care America NOW, confusing; Of late the motto for single payer groups Medicare for All, gets co-opted by the public option folks as Medicare for Everybody, more confusing, more disingenuous ("Everybody" my fucking foot), Public Option has always been a part of the Private Option agenda to garner more money...HR 3200 (the "public option" bill) has way, way more than 1000 pages, HR676 (the true Medicare for All bill) has about 27 in pdf, which do you think is less confusing to the representatives? Who of us really has time to read thousands of pages and understand all the newspeak and hidden items inherent therein??? Got confusion??

Single Payer Health care (HR 676 and S703) would be plans that truly covers everybody, when you call your reps ask for these by number, no confusion. Great folks to check out are the Private Health Insurance Must Go folks, lots of civil disobedience stuff in conjunction with the Healthcare Now folks et al. Mad as Hell doctors too...

[Inuca]

5. The difference

for profit vs. not for profit

[MNDemNY]

15. Controled by a wing of a "for profit" co.???

How do you suppose that will work out?

[bertman]

26. It was pointed out in a thread yesterday that Medicare is already administered through

private insurance companies and it works very well. Those companies already have the systems set up for tracking and billing and they do the Medicare administration for a minimal cost.

I was very pissed when I first read about this, but if it's already being done and it is helping Medicare to keep costs low, I don't see the problem with it.

[clear eye]

45. The biggest problem will be the cost via taxes falling on the middle class and no benefit to economy

There is a lot of admirable language in H.R. 3200 that prevents exclusion for pre-existing conditions, being dumped when you get sick, etc. in all health insurance. There is even half-decent language preventing skyrocketing deductibles and copays in "Exchange" plans. ($5k max for individual & $10K max for family per year) The mandate will mean more healthy people insured, lowering the average costs. There is at least stability for the premiums even if there will be a pretty high amount above cost charged. Of course Baby Boomers are entering traditional Medicare, and the entire "Exchange" both public and private plans are only to available to those not otherwise elegible for group insurance. The "public" in public option means it will be gov't underwritten. The criticism of higher costs due to outsourcing, maintenance of multiple payers, and cost plus premium structure, is valid.

The big problem is by allowing that very high amount above cost to satisfy private insurers, the continued expensive paperwork of dealing w/ multiple insurers added to provider costs at every level, and requiring the gov't to partially subsidize the premiums to a level of "affordability" for all formerly uninsured allowed into the exchange, the program (as in MA) will cost A LOT. While a middle class person or family will get partial subsidies for their insurance, the bill for all that expensive insurance will have to fall somewhere. With no prospect in sight of restoring higher rates for the top incomes, that burden will fall where it always falls--on the middle class. So though you might be given a credit for insurance on the one hand, you are likely to have an overall higher tax bill on the other, as gov't tries to satisfy the demands for the program to stop increasing the deficit, especially with the planned depreciation of the dollar raising your bracket (you'll get paid nominally higher amounts that will buy less). As the cost of insurance to a working person would still be considerable, even w/ subsidies, there will still be pressure for employer-based insurance, continuing U.S. businesses' disadvantage vs. businesses in the rest of industrialized countries.

If this was the only option, I wouldn't object. But, of course, it isn't. Single-payer would cover us all completely for much less, and take the pressure off U.S. businesses to provide health insurance, expanding the economy. Despite losses of jobs in the insurance industry, economists have determined that the net effect would be a jobs increase and lower unemployment.

[Knight Hawk]

35. Cant be too cynical

As I have said for years it is impossible to be too cynical in the United States these days.All those who bought into the possibility of a good comprehensive health insurance program for the masses have been punked .There are many reasons why but it will not work at this time in this country.I spent 30 years in the health insurance industry.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. Now, now Obama has stated that he will be the last president to deal with health care reform and he

MEANS THAT!! No matter how badly WE THE PEOPLE might be screwed over. :evilgrin:

[joeycola]

48. did you mean--NOT deal with........

[Liberation Angel]

6. K&R so that more folks who might know more will weigh in. WTF???

Frankly, for me and my teenage kids who have no insurance ever since layoffs took away our insurance and we could not afford COBRA, I would probably be able to get the "public option" and my kids , who are underemployed or likely will be when they reach 18 years old unless things get seriously better, will too.

But I frankly want single payer and the idea of a "public option" with subsidies has seemed a compromise that is better than nothing.

Are Obama and the Dems pulling the wool over our eyes or is this just a propaganda effort to get people to oppose this bill?

Serious critiques are desired.

Please help with this. I don't really get it.

are we being totally played or is this just blather?

[blindpig]

8. Had again.....

[OHdem10]

9. What a Legacy. Dismantling the Safety Net.

Why do we have a Democratic Party.

[Divine Discontent]

10. very frustrating isn't it! I made an OP saying for "Pete's sake just vote on it", already, because

we already know it's not what we wanted to begin with, and the corporations have paid off everyone they need to.

[maryf]

11. Thanks so much, OG!!

The only option IMO is single payer, true Medicare for All. I've been getting behind on my articles, caught me up big time here! :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

12. Big K&R ....

The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

[MH1]

14. people love to have opinions about things they know nothing about

that point was made very clearly about the "public option" very early on. It is only an option for those who can't get coverage through their employer.

I don't like it but after all these months I have little sympathy for people who are just realizing it now. What the fuck did they think they were talking about, before? Could the conversation have been just a little different if the participants had been paying a little more attention?

and what makes it worse is that I haven't paid all that much attention myself, and I admit it, but I knew this much.

[slipslidingaway]

17. The messages have been mixed ...

In the Obama/Biden health care plan it states...

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

(2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a
National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL provided for people and families who need it..."

[MH1]

19. but that was never in the congressional plan, was it?

or it was thrown overboard very early on.

[slipslidingaway]

21. I'm not exactly sure when it was thrown overboard, but the early...

push for HC reform told people they would have a choice, many times it was not defined as to who exactly would be eligible.

I suppose the House bill does not prohibit people from leaving their employer's plan and buying the PO, but as far as I know, the employer does not then have to contribute to the public plan.

So if someone's employer contributes a good portion to the employee's HC plan, then most will not switch, maybe that is why CBO estimates that just over 3% will be enrolled in the PO by 2019.

[leftstreet]

16. I'm sure they'll raise our wages to cover all this reform

Oh, and they'll create several million new jobs too

I'm sure of it

[bvar22]

18. SCAM from the Get-Go.

Health Insurance Reform WILL BE a massive transfer of PUBLIC MONEY to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.
THAT has already been decided.
ALL we are being allowed to do is BEG for the crumbs.

Many at DU just don't want to face the TRUTH.
<from an OP by bvar22>

The very best "Public Option" on the table (HR 3200) is indeed a "tiny sliver" (Obama) that will affect LESS than 5% of Americans (about 3%, CBO).

It will NOT be government run "like Medicare" (Obama), but will be administered by a "private" corporation, most probably a consortium of For Profit Health Insurance Corporations masquerading as "The Exchange".
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/09/13/sullivan-publicoptionin... /

Since the "Public Option" will NOT be "government run", it will have none of the administrative cost savings that Medicare enjoys. It will be able to offer at best about a 10% cost saving.
Unless protected by legislation, the For Profit Health Insurance Corporations competing on "The Exchange" could use their massive size to undercut the Public Option, and could actually price their cut rate plans below the price of the Public Option, effectively killing it.

If the "Public Option" is really "Government Run", why won't I be able to buy it directly from the US Government?
Why will I be forced to but it from "The Exchange"?
Why does America even NEED "The Exchange"?
Obama tells us that "The Exchange" will let us "compare prices and plans", but anyone can already "compare prices and plans" on the Internet.
Its EASY. Just Google "Shop for Health Insurance". (51 Million hits)
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Alliance?allid=Goo...

The Public Option offered by "The Exchange" (NOT by the US Government) will be so unattractive that the CBO projects (and Obama agrees) that 4 out of 5 people FORCED to BUY Health Insurance on "The Exchange" will prefer to buy it from a For Profit Health Insurance Corporation.

The Public Option (as specified in HR 3200) will NOT "open the door to Single Payer" since it only further entrenches the precedent that Americans MUST BUY Health Insurance from a "private" entity (The Exchange) instead of the US Government. (Have you noticed NO ONE, Democrat or Republican talks about "opening the door to Single Payer" anymore?)

No, The Public Option we are being allowed to beg for really isn't worth the effort.
It is a "thin sliver" that will benefit very few (if any) Americans.

After studying what is really in HR 3200, I have quit calling and writing, begging The Democrats for THIS "Public Option". It is a handful of crumbs being thrown to the peasants for diversion while $BILLIONS of Dollars of PUBLIC MONEY is transferred to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.

Americans DESERVE better.
America should DEMAND better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6809439

*What is The Exchange?

*Who is The Exchange?

*Why do we need The Exchange?

*How is The Exchange funded?

*Why can't I buy my "government run" Public Option directly from The Government?

The Majority of Americans are going to be very disappointed when they open their NEW Health Care Package and find a HUGE Bill from the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.
They will blame The Democrats, and rightly so.

THAT is WHY The "Democrats" have delayed the implementation of Health Care Reform until just AFTER the 2012 Elections.
You would have to be a complete IDIOT to buy their story that it takes 4 years to get this pathetically small reform Up and Running.

Kabuki Theater.
THEY are laughing at YOU, begging for crumbs like a dog at the dinner table.


K&R

[Individualist]

20. +1

Too many are denying that there's an elephant in the room.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473793640804078.html

[bvar22]

22. Good old DLC Al From .

Wanna know WHY The "Democratic" Health Care Reform is a massive transfer of PUBLIC MONEY (Billions) to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry?

Here you go:

The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply


"A Uniquely American Solution"....Indeed.

[flyarm]

23. +1, +1, +1, +1, +1,+1, +1, +1, +1, +1,+1,+1, +1, +1! !! ! K&R

[flyarm]

24. its why they have so many on DU trying to shut down the flow of info..lots of un-rec's and lots of

bullshit and propaganda..we all know who they are doing it..and we must all remember who they are..in fact i am acting accordingly with their threads of propaganda now..go for it!!

[tomp]

41. agreed and thanks for stating it so plainly.

why does anybody believe the democrats? this is naivete in the extreme.

[maryf]

25. Evening kick...

the truth hurts, the only cure for that is justice...hope we get some...

[nightrain]

27. knr. many of us having be saying this for months! but good to get the info out again

because it's worthy.

[Jakes Progress]

28. But, but, but. It's all good. Right?

This is what we wanted. Right? This is what we worked the campaign for. Right?

Surely Obama will veto a "public option" that is not a public option. Right?

We won't get turned over to the insurance companies just so campaign funds will still flow. Rigth?

(Now watch the apologists start telling us how good this is.)

[debbierlus]

29. I think that vast majority WANT a public option so they have the option to PARTICIPATE in it

I haven't dropped this issue. I am actually trying to work with a major group to do a mass information campaign on their disinformation.

A zillion and one recommends.

Thank you.

[slipslidingaway]

30. 65% want a universal health care system for everyone...

so what the hell happened ... they switched the message and sold us on the idea of a public option, a uniquely American solution.

:(

questions on page 15 ...
http://surveys.ap.org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/AP-Yahoo_2007-08_panel02.pdf

http://www.mnhealthreformcaucus.org/?p=8

"Yet another poll demonstrates that a majority of Americans support universal coverage under a single-payer system. A poll conducted during the week of December 14-20, 2007 by the Associated Press and Yahoo found that 65 percent of Americans support extending Medicare to everyone, and that 54 percent are willing to identify themselves as single-payer supporters.

Here are the questions asked by the AP-Yahoo poll:

ISS14. Which comes closest to your view?


“The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.”

“Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?”

Sixty-five percent answered yes to the first question, and 54 percent said yes to the second one. (Poll results available through link at: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-voter-worries. After you click on the link at this address, scroll down to page 15.)

A single-payer system and a Medicare-for-all system are synonymous. Why, then, was support higher for extending Medicare to all than for a system described as a “single-payer”? The answer, it seems obvious to me, is the level of familiarity people have with Medicare versus the concept of “single payer.” Medicare is a familiar program, while the phrase “single-payer” is not.

These data tell me that as people become more familiar with single-payer their support for it will rise. I believe the same applies to Medicare for all. As people become more familiar with what that means, and as more political leaders and other opinion-makers promote Medicare for all, support for Medicare for all will rise beyond the two-thirds level that exists today.."

[saracat]

31. Thank you thank you for posting the "truth".

[whathehell]

32. Obama and company are starting to look SO lame...

I'm so sick of this country....Maybe if I was younger, I'd have the energy to fight more..but I'm just disgusted.:(

[intaglio]

33. and exactly where does this info come from?

anyone with real connections - or just another group of frustrated pseudo-left wing fantasists?

[ipaint]

37. Well they are on Bill Moyers quite a bit so for people like you

they would be "frustrated pseudo-left wing fantasists" comparable to teabaggers.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Ron Wyden is a United States Senator from Oregon

My Senator. He's fairly well connected, being a United States Senator and all.

[KG]

34. any PO is just a steaming pile of rearraging of the deck chairs, anyway.

the whole HCR has been nothing but a dog and pony show.

[DaveinJapan]

38. K&R nt

[joeycola]

39. Even Obama said it would cover less than 5% in his health speech.

[joeycola]

40. REC

[SlowDownFast]

42. K&R.

Doesn't surprise me in the least bit.

Gov't is bought and paid for, including Obama.

"B-b-but, he's a CHESS PLAYER!"

[KG]

43. the other day it was dominos - he's settin' 'em up, and knockin' 'em down.

:rofl:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

46. Bump

[Kermitt Gribble]

47. Excellent post, OG!

What makes it even worse is that they're trying to rename this bs public option as Medicare to fool more people into supporting it.

[earth mom]

49. The United States of Corporate America- the real name for the U.S.A.

:grr:

:argh: