Blogs and Stories
Who Needs a Public Option?
Even without it, health care would be the greatest piece of liberal legislation in years.
The progressive political world was sent into a tizzy over the weekend as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius indicated on Meet The Press that the Obama administration would be okay with a health-reform plan that doesn't include a so-called "public option." Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) added fuel to the fire when he reiterated both his personal opposition to such an option and his doubt that a bill featuring a public option could pass the Senate. The level of panic about this is somewhat overstated, because the administration's position hasn't really shifted, notwithstanding alarmist headlines like "'Public Option' in Health Plan May Be Dropped." But more important, it's overstated because one can still easily imagine a health-reform plan that would be a monumental progressive achievement even without a public option.
It's no exaggeration to say that even without a public option, a health-care bill would be the greatest progressive legislative accomplishment in four decades.
Indeed, for all the fetishization of the public plan among liberals, it's worth emphasizing that the sort of plan being envisioned by congressional liberals would affect relatively few people. Moreover, the flipside of Barack Obama's promise that the currently insured won't be forced to change their coverage is that the currently insured also wouldn't be allowed to drop out of their current plans and opt in to a new public one.
Which isn't to say that the main plans currently being offered don't have a lot to offer the insured majority. In fact, they offer a great deal, most notably a set of consumer protections that would cap out-of-pocket health costs, guarantee access to preventive care, and prevent insurers from treating people well as long as they're healthy only to start monkeying around when they get sick. This would be a big deal. The bills in Congress also envision expanding the Medicaid program that currently serves the poor. This would only help a relatively narrow slice of the near-poor, but for those who are helped, the help would be enormous.
Finally, and critically, the plans in Congress aim to fix the broken individual market for health insurance.
Most kinds of insurance you can just go and buy for yourself. But health insurance doesn't work like that because nobody wants to sell an insurance policy to anyone who would want to buy one. The fear is that you'd let yourself go uninsured until you find our you're going to need medical care, and then go buy some insurance. This problem of so-called "adverse selection" means health insurance can only work when an employer can bundle together a big group of people, leaving the self-employed, the unemployed, and those working for small firms at a huge disadvantage. All versions of health insurance reform before Congress would offer a three-fold fix to this. First, force insurers to offer a defined set of benefits to all comers at a fixed price—no discrimination based on gender, health status, whatever. Second, fix the adverse-selection problem this causes by mandating that everyone get themselves some health insurance. Third, to fix the economic hardship this might apply to some families, offer generous subsidies to ensure affordability for all.
This would, if done correctly, more-or-less solve the problem of the uninsured. And those of us who do have insurance would be spared the insurance-related anxiety that's endemic in contemporary American life. No longer would the state of your health care need to be a dominant decision in making career choices, and no longer would the risk of job loss also be the risk of preventable death or medical bankruptcy.
The idea of the public option is that instead of the menu of choices available to consumers on this new individual insurance market ("the exchange") being restricted to existing private insurers, the government would also create a new competing entity. This is a good idea, that holds some promise for improving quality and reducing costs. But even without it, everything outlined above would still happen. That would be a huge win for the uninsured, the poor, the anxiety-stricken middle class, and ultimately for the economy as a whole. It wouldn't be an ideal health plan or the best bill you can imagine. But it's no exaggeration to say that it would be the greatest progressive legislative accomplishment in four decades, and that's nothing to sneer at.
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Thanks Mr. Yglesias, for proving my point in another comment thread about the liberal press giving Obama credit for his spinelessness. This legislation will not actually work out for anybod. Now I'll be forced to buy a product I don't want, or face fines??? Yeah, that sounds really progressive, expanding the corporate customer base. The rules you are so proud of will only have real teeth when there's a public option. Of course, the public option was supposed to be the compromise in the first place, so how can you celebrate Obama's caving in?
It's time for progressives to abandon the Democrats and unite behind a party that shares our ideals.
What party shares your ideals as a "progressive", the CPUSA?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Easyrider, either you're a Republican shill, or you may as well be, because you're doing their work for them. Delcaring that, less than one year into it, the Obama presidency is a failure puts you square in the Dittohead camp. How does it feel to agree with Mr. Bouncy? If it doesn't make your skin crawl, you're not a progressive.
I have a word I want to teach you people. It's called COMPROMISE. It's a thing for grownups, not big babies, so you might have trouble with it. Compromise is where we deal with political realities and do what is possible. We don't throw tantrums when the President doesn't manage the impossible. We don't throw up our hands and vote for a Bush-electing loser like Nader. We speak up, we let the President know what we want, and if things don't go our way, we grit our teeth and press on. In other words, we act like adults. The problem with politics on both sides is that people simply can't take of the diapers and behave like grownups. Take a long look at yourself and ask: if I refuse to compromise, aren't I just a different flavor of the right-wing loonies I despise so much? Aren't I just a big baby who isn't worthy of the right to vote?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Obama can't lead? How about the dems CANT follow. Have you all even been watching this unfold. The Blue Dogs are bitting the hand of the man who helped many of them get elected. (many blue dogs are from the south and would not be there without the AA voter bump).
Also, the media has failed to defend the TRUTH at Obama's expense. They are so hell bent on Proving that they are not Pro-Obama that they let any absurd GOP attack line (death panels) gain legitamacy by reporting them.
Obama can't do this a lone. He is talking all the left wing flack... while next to none seems to be trained at the Dems in congress who are blocking his agenda for their own political benefit.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Well, this article appears as number 2 on the Daily Beast. Article number 1 was entitles "The Republican Comeback."
Yet Republicans still complain about a "Liberal Media." Even when the most recognizable names in media today: Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Riely, Coulter and Beck are all far right-wing.
This underscores the Republican position: "All or nothing." No compromise. Hell, they're livid with John McCain for voting with Bush only 90% of the time.
Republicans can't be negotiated with. They don't compromise. They don't work toward consensus. They don't share. Bend their way 95% of the time and they'll demonize you for the other 5%.
This is why Republicans simply must be beaten. To hell with what they think and what they say. The Center and the Left must remember to kick their teeth in every single chance they get.
Spoken like a Ron Paulite.
thekingofcheap: Why not? It looks like the extremist wingnuts are about to abandon the Republican party. I say let every body have his or her own party!
maspring: When Republicans complain about a "Liberal Media" , I just remind myself that these guys are liars. What else is new?
So many, so confused.
I have a straightforward "poll" that I'd like to share with anyone afraid of the right wing of the country -- the "immoral minority."
It was inspired by my congressman's website, Republican John Shadegg, who's only feed back he provided for his constituents was:
Do you support:
a. government- centered health care
or
b. patient- centered health care
I recognized the false choice and wrote a poll of my own, which I would like everyone to share with as many people as they can.
Do you support:
a. Insurance company executives making on average $11.9 million per year?
or
b. Jesus' message to his followers to take care of the sick and the poor?
Please report any and all feedback on my "poll."
No Obamacare for bums and illegals. See you in a few months so i can laugh at you . Dreamers and sceamers, these Obama socialist.
Uhhh.... NO !
I still DO NOT see a viable method of driving down Insurance Company Premiums without a good competition from a National Non-Profit Health Insurance Provider ...
I'm sorry BUT co-ops will NOT cut it ...
We can NOT count on the for profit Insurance Companies to do what is right without any form of coercion ...
A co-op member on cable news today said that it costs almost as much as private insurance. He also said that they reject some people with pre-existing medical conditions.
It doesn't sound like co-ops will help uninsured Americans very much.
So basically your saying that the insurance industry needs regulation, and I so agree. Perhaps it was too much to expect our President to take on this mega-greedy corp known as insurance, especially in these times of economic upheaval. If he would have pushed for regulation we could force big insurance to become more affordable, to quit the cherry-picking and to just quit deciding who deserves to live or die.
Until our government decides to rein-in the abuses that have come about in the last twenty or so years that allow these big corps to reap billions every year all the while holding their subscribers hostage, nothing will change. Until we have a President and Congress who will fight fire with fire with lying republicans, who will actually work for the people, nothing will change.
If Obama can't get politicians to work togeather for true reform, then I hope he pushes them out of the way. Unless the middle class gets a break here, we will become a society of rich and the poor, with nothing in between.
I'll tell you who needs expanded Medicare and Medicaid: the people who can't afford to buy private health insurance. This is not just some pie in the sky thing, it is harsh reality.
It is wrong to mandate that every individual buy private health insurance that they cannot afford. It would be a terrible mistake to pass a "reform" like that with no public alternative--and this administration is already making too many mistakes and fumbling around too much. I fear they are wasting the best opportunity for reform Democrats have had since the days of FDR.
Now, I'm all for expanded Medicaid and funding for public hospitals. That part of the bill should pass, and I think it will. They should not require everyone to buy private health insurance, though, and they should stop changing their story from one day to the next. It's causing a big loss of confidence among their base of supporters.
He should just scoop up the republican alternative and call it his and pass that. That worked for Clinton with Welfare reform and it drove the republicans nuts. I
Interesting thought. Do you think there should more to it than this?
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
And I fear that mandatory health insurance will be as big a rip off as mandatory auto insurance. I do NOT trust government to regulate insurance companies, since it does such a bad job at regulating anything.
Unlike the Republicans, I think that big business interests actually control the government, not the other way around, and I have no confidence in the ability of government to do anything to protect the consumer.
Let there be more public options in health care, housing and banking, but forget about trying to regulate capitalism. The government has never regulated capitalism very well at all, since capitalism simply has to be allowed to act like itself. Public options, however, should be run like public services--not for-profit.
mcmchugh99: I agree that the government does a poor job of regulating, due to lobbying efforts by the companies being regulated.
But what do you think would happen without any government regulation?
Personally, I don't want to find out. Businesses tend to become criminal because it is cheaper and more profitable. Other businesses must either follow suit or go broke.
Am I detecting a new strategy here? One that says when you face opposition to your plans to expand the interference of the state on an unprecedented magnitude - you first declare victory then retreat?
Mr.Yglesias, I can tell you are a liberal because you are so hopeful. If you think health insurance companies are going to serve up *consumer protections* without raising the price on their products, you are dreaming. The only protection private insurance companies are interested in is protection for their bottom line.
Further, I'll bet you a dollar to donuts that there will be loopholes galore either by omission or commission for the insurance companies in any health insurance reform this Congress lets get past its grubby hands. The insurance companies expect a return on their investment after all is said and done.
The point of public option was to take the profit motive out of health care. Without a public option, there is no reform. Period.
"without a public option, there is no reform." with a public option huge dem losses next election cycle because there is no time to prove it works before the divided electorate pulls the handle in the voting booth. interesting dilemma.
jus1drun: Do you really think people will forget the disasters of the last Republican administration so fast? A $5 trillion national debt and two wars come immediately to mind.
It doesn't matter what they pass, the Dems are going to have a hard time in the mid-terms. No matter what passes it will be demonized. There aren't any low hanging fruit for the Dems to pick anymore. The right has a very fired up base and the left is disgusted with the spinelessness of their leaders. Voter turnout is low during midterms anyway. If something substantial doesn't happen now, Dems just aren't going to show up. They sure as hell won't raise money.
What matt forgets is that the presidents over the past 4 decades
Have been republican NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH.
Carter couldn't do anything for the same reason obama can't corrupt democrats like max baucus who receive 4 million from the health insurance lobby and he's the guy writing the bill in the senate.
It's like letting Dick Cheney run a Mosque.
There is no reform without a public option.
Want proof look at banking regulation.
It got scrapped in the 90's and nobody cared and look what happened.
The same will happen with health care regulation.
The GOP will get in power scrap it and nobody will notice.
Now compare that with W's attempt to scrap social security.
He couldn't the GOP can't touch social security of medicare and get elected ever again.
The same would happen with the public option.
What don't you democrats get?
because the next election is too close. they get it.
jus1drun is right. Unfortunately, getting reelected is more important to most politicians than what is good for American.
The only way out of this mess is a Constitutional amendment to force our government to pay for elections. This would eliminate most of the power of the current lobbyists. This will likely never happen.
Obama campaigned on reforming health care. He was elected by a landslide. The citizens gave him a majority in the Senate and The House of Representatives. Anything short of reforming health care with the Public Option is betrayal, pure and simple. We are witnessing the real war within America: the corporations versus the American people. Corporations are armed with large campaign donations, PAC support,and insidious lobbyists. The American voter doesnt stand a chance.
We are witnessing the lies many politicians tell every day in print, television, and the Internet. They lie with impunity. They do what they are told to do by powerful insiders and spin the voters, many of whom are ill informed. Their rhetoric creates an environment where it all boils down to my team versus your team. How sad.
With deregulation of banking we got the financial mess we have today. With the Enron Rule we got the very targeted deregulation of energy trading which made the rolling blackouts in California and sky rocketing gasoline prices possible as a result of unregulated energy futures trading in the United States and other markets throughout the world. Thank you Phil Grahamm. We bailed out AIG and a host of other financial organizations. We bailed out the car companies and at least saved American jobs... The Senate caved on banking reform as a result of pressure from bank lobbies. Credit reform was achieved but headlines today show these firms are rushing to stick it to the average consumer one more time, before the new law goes into effect.
We finally as citizens, have one opportunity; one opportunity out of hundreds which benefit special interest groups, to benefit each and every citizen in this country - lock in affordable, comprehensive, inalienable health care. In so doing, we make sure that life, and the quality with which it is lived, is extended to all, regardless of priviledge or economic advantage.
If this administration, at this time in history, doesnt achieve the goal and fulfill its promise, then many of us will never see this achieved in our lifetime. I fear health care reform, will be killed for several generations. I think politicians, including many Democrats, have been bought and paid for and if true, I will know once and for all, our political system is an image, a hologram, and not what many truly believe it to be.
I still believe Obama will keep his word, but I will work hard to help opponents of those who vote against healthcare reform, especially the Democrats, in my State or any other, as I believe them to be acting in the interest of the corporation and not the citizen.
how about we let potus fix the economy first. there's a few atta-boys in that. win the 2010 elections and have a health plan ready for deliberation the next day.
FactsTravel: Unfortunately, Obama does not have 60 votes in the Senate. There are too many blue dog Democrats, who are actually moderate Republicans (Arlen Specter is the most obvious example). Without 60 votes, there is little chance of a controversial bill getting passed by the Senate.
you only need 50 votes plus the VP to break a tie. There are procedural ways around a filibuster. Knashing of teeth.
Congrats! You managed to write an entire column without branding someone a racist. It's baby steps, but we're making progress!
Are you a racist?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
And... coops are a scam. You need 500,000 enrolled coop participants in a given region, and the coop model is a regional plan, to even begin to be viable, and the key word is "begin." Truth is, coops never get the enrollment and therefore never work. So a coop is a pacifier for the electorate. Coop = status quo.
Excellent analysis. Thank you. But I have a question: if there is no mechanism for cost controls, what is to keep insurance companies from continuing to raise premiums? If they are kept from denying people insurance based on pre-existing conditions and other factors, what is to keep them from denying insurance based on prohibitive costs? Regulations will make insurance accessible, but if prices aren't regulated, there is nothing that can't keep it from being economically inaccessible to most people.
You're right up until the part where you say that insurance will be more affordable. This bill will very little to make it more affordable for most people. The subsidies will eventually be priced into premiums by the insurers, which basically means that we will be subsidizing the insurers and getting very little in return.
The public option is the key to affordability. Premiums will not rise excessively because then people will just buy the public option instead.
I know that it's politically challenging, and it would be better for Beltway insiders if we didn't challenge the establishment so much. But that's what Obama was elected to do. And it's the politically wise thing to do. It's about time he started doing it.
America does. The millions and millions of Americans who are without insurance or under insuranced or an preexisting condition Those Americans need protection also. It is a human face of this economically farce that the Republicans have created. If you just go and buy health insurance and are over 50 years old and health it costs over $5000 a year for single coverage!
Oh so the govt is just supposed to give everyone free care, right. It doesn't matter the cost...just cover everyone with all the services they need. Oh yeah and the cost of care will somehow, magically, come down.
All you lefty, lefty liberals on this board need a dose of reality. Everything that this author talks about is reality here in New England and our premiums are sky high. I'm not saying it's wrong but we can't go around just giving coverage to everyone. I would rather not totally bankrupt the nation and pass all this debt on to my kids.
You're already
Paying for them
In the most expensive
Way possible-
Emergency room care.
Doesn't it bother you that you're
Being ripped off?
If, according to you, we can't give coverage to everyone who do you propose should decide who is worthy and who isn't? Because right now, it's the insurance companies. I take it you assume that your children will never face a serious health crisis or that their insurance company will decide it doesn't serve the bottom line to continue covering them. Some people don't have health insurance because they don't want it, but the vast majority aren't covered through no fault of their own and desperately want coverage.
Time to take out the health ins companies. They are using our premiums for lobbying and advertising to fight reform, give multi-million dollar executive salaries and bonuses for denial of claims and to support tea-bagger protests. I have been seeing someone on twitter calling for all Americans fed up with health insurers to practice free market/capitalism and boycott them. They are calling this week "National Cancel Health Insurance Week" and encouraging everyone to call their health ins company and cancel their policy this week. I think it's a great idea. If the people we elected are being financially supported by health ins companies it's time to cut off the money. Money is the only language they speak. We don't have to march, go to town halls and risk getting shot, don't have to drive to demonstrations. Demonstrate with your checkbook by not writing that check. I'm making the call.
So what exactly is the value-added that insurance companies provide for their 30% added cost?
Who needs a public option ?? Obama needs a goddamn public option !! Did the republicans win the election ? Did conservatives win the election ? Did the Goddamn insurance companys win the election ? NO NO and NO !! We won the elections , The Senate, The House , and the Whitehouse, I like many worked our fucking asses off for Obama and now he chooses to go on vacation and sell us out ? Fuck him !! I've never been so goddamn mad in my life !! I am done !! I've lost friends and family in support of a man who I thought was actually for "The People " I thought my friends and family would see the light and come around after Obama made a positive difference in their lives, I must be a goddamn fool , That fucking two faced sellout has until opening business tomorrow to publicly come out and say hold the presses there has been an awful mistake or else I'm going straight to the voter registration office and dropping the Democratic party like a bad dream !! Universal Healthcare my ass !!
It's not Obama that's selling your out. It's your party. Dems don't stick together. If they did they'd eat the Republicans alive.
If the shoe were on the other foot instead of dropping the Dems for getting all weak-kneed over true reform the left would bring the crazy in the same way the Republicans do.
And where is this Rham Emanuel? I heard he was supposed to be this total hard-ass. Is he on vacation?
Anyway, you may have to go insane to get the world you want. Maybe show up at Democratic events armed. Rave about death panels. Join a militia. It seems to work for Republicans.
CitizenBloggerX - You'll be changing your registration all the time. Neither of the main parties are anywhere near perfect, and there aren't any sainted geniuses masquerading as politicians.
Well, there's always Nader.
Yes, there's Nader. But voting for him is like me voting Libertarian. Nothing comes of it. Otherwise I might give it a try.
maspring - 'And where is this Rham Emanuel? I heard he was supposed to be this total hard-ass. Is he on vacation?'
I've been wondering the samething.
Elections have consequences. I voted for change. I voted for health care reform. I voted for everything the President campaigned for. Why should those who voted for this President have to settle on what we already had for the past 8 years? The Republicans lost. When will we be able to celebrate the changes?
I believe everyone would expect to be taken care of if they had a health problem and needed emergency care. So, it is hard to argue that all should not be required to purchase some level of minimal insurance. What I don;t see is why I should be asked to subsidize someone else's insurance. It would be okay to do this for the poor, but the politicians keep expanding the definition of poor to include the middle class. Since there are too many middle class people to come up with a fiscally sound entitlement, we end up with another underfunded entitlement. Given this, I just hope the whole thing falls apart. I would rather take my chances with evil insurance companies.
You subsidize everyone whether you like it or not.
Rich, poor, middle class... if they get sick and show up at the local emergency room and don't pay, the hospital cares for them and then jacks up its prices to cover the loss. The insurance companies swallow those costs and add them into your premiums. Then they add a multiplier to make a profit.
The question isn't if you're going to pay or not. You'll pay. The question is what you're going to pay and how? Preventative care and real insurance for everyone? Or the existing collection of mixed incentives.
Take your pick.
Health care costs are a major part of medicare and social security. They're also the highest costs in the industrialized world.
People just let themselves get too emotional about this. If you just set the drama aside and focus on solving the problems it's not such a big deal.
Studies show it is cheaper to let them show up to the emergency room. In fact, while preventive care is a good thing medically, it is very costly.
Yesterday on "Meet the Press," Dick Armey said that there are currently 1300 health insurance companies in the U.S. right now. If that is true, conservatively throw in all the hospital and pharmaceuticals companies and we as a nation are supporting something like 1500 companies. We already spend twice as much per capita as other nations and about 1.5 times as much as a percentage of GDP. The problem is that currently this money is funneled to 1500 CEO's, 1500 overheads, 1500 golden toilets and expensive office throw rugs, 1500 profit statements, an incalculable amount of waste. When conservatives used to push health savings accounts, they acknowledged that there are no downward pressures on pricing. The only way to do that is to kill the profit motive and these companies. Factory workers had to grin and bear it for the public good when free trade outsourced all their jobs. Superfluous healthcare execs should be asked to do the same.
What counts is getting universal health care in place, something better than COBRA, catastrophic event insurance, plus a way to pay for it all, with some cost controls thrown in for the fiscal conservatives, and getting our infant mortality rate somewhere far north of Cuba's.
References for infant mortality rate from the CIA World Factbook...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/20 91rank.html
NYT article - > Infant Deaths Fall in U.S., Though Rate Is Still High
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E7DD143AF935A25753C1A 96E9C8B63
NYT article - > U.S. Still Struggling With Infant Mortality
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html?_r=1
From the article -> In 2004, the latest year for which worldwide data are available, the United States had a higher rate than 28 countries, including Singapore, Japan, Cuba and Hungary.
Here's a nice graphic from the NYT article above...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/04/06/health/infant_stats.html
Single Payer Option doesn't matter, at least in the short run. We can always go communist later.
"Despise the enemy strategically, but take him seriously tactically." - Mao Tse-Tung
If you want to keep talking about COBRA, why don't you expose it for what it is? Just a patch to a rigged system to shut everybody up. And it worked for twenty five years.
I thought you did a good job of it on an earlier article...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/white-house-backtracks-on- public-option/health-care/?cid=cs:headline1
cbeenthere
But what possibly could have been the justification for the outrageous increase in your premium? Ever wondered? I haven't been able to find the answer to that one. 5:42 pm, Aug 16, 2009
cbeenthere
Actually, I did take a quick glance on the COBRA website, and noted that apparently 35 percent is paid by the insured with the remaining amount 65 percent returned to the insurer as a tax credit, this as the result of a change sometime in the 90's. The law first went into effect in 1985, so people were getting screwed even worse then, as an employer I know. So an unfair (posing as fair) law was modified, and still the insurance cos. managed to come out on top. This is how they play the game. 6:07 pm, Aug 16, 2009
cbeenthere
Correction the change in the COBRA law only took place last February 2009, not the mid 90's as I posted. So you were among the really screwed.6:09 pm, Aug 16, 2009
cbeenthere
I should also mention that Feb 2009 was the recovery act , and this was apparently negotiated to help people who were out of jobs to hang on to their ins. for just a little bit longer reducing the outrageous premiums, but there are the ins. cos. demanding a tax credit. Something is wrong with this picture. I think we can do without this. 7:37 pm, Aug 16, 2009
Fixing COBRA is very important. It's one of the as yet unexploded bombs that will destroy a individual or family financially if they need it, because of the huge jump in price at a time that income drops like a rock. Perhaps I think that losing employment and employer based insurance should qualify an individual for Medicaid, even if at the same rate employee paid before, or if the funding allows, free of cost.
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by the tone on this thread. Mr. Yglesias, you wrote a brilliant article: simple, cogent, persuasive.
This article is trying to show that even if the public option is not in the final bill, health reform (and thus Obama and the Democrats) still succeeds. Sure, the public option is ideal, but its exclusion does not diminish the importance of this legislation. Nor does it preclude its consideration in the future. It simply allows a passable bill to make it into law. This, unfortunately, is how American politics work.
At the end of the day, if we end up with a health care system where everyone is covered, those in need are given financial support, your premiums are capped, and you can't be dropped when you need coverage the most, I will consider this a huge success.
To all the Democrats: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
The public option is a must or the whole exercise will be fruitless and there will not be the savings there need to be in order to handle the innovations you prize.
I think that some people who posted on this article should read it again. I feel that Matt Yglesias could be right. He wrote that the Public Option "would affect relatively few people" and that those who already have insurance wouldn't be allowed to switch to it. He also wrote that the consumer protections under "the main plans being offered" would put a cap on out of pocket expenses, give patients the right to preventive care, and stop the insurers from dropping people for getting sick. What point is there in paying good money for health insurance if you could be denied coverage for getting diabetes or cancer? That is crazy. Moreover, Matt stated that "All versions of health insurance before congress" will fix the "Adverse Selection" problem in the 5th paragraph of his article. So if all of the above is included in health care reform, then I still think it's better than what we have now - even without the Public Option. I also heard on the news that this option wasn't going to get passed anyway.
What I think is funny is that liberal lefties actually thought Obama was for the people. He is for the people... all the people that gave him and his party money. Just like republicans. All politicians are the same... the say what they want to get elected, then have to pay the piper. To the victor goes the spoils! Well regular people your $500 donation gets you a write off, $1 million donation from Goldman employees gets you a federal bailout!
I did donate. And I do expect my payout:
- US out of Iraq
- End Don't Ask Don't Tell
- Restart stem-cell research
- Health care legislation
- Climate change regulation
- Stabilized economy
- Sane foreign policy
So far I'm getting most of what I paid for. Health care legislation is the big one and I expect something there too. It's only been eight months and I'm patient.
For the second term I'll make another donation and will expect a reduction in the deficit as payoff.
It's not even
Seven months.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.