House Blue Dogs Seek To Slow-Walk The Public Option
House Blue Dogs today released a statement of principles (PDF) for what they call "responsible" health reform, specifically addressing what they view as acceptable terms of the public option.
Buried at the bottom is this caveat. "The availability of a public option would occur only as a fallback and in the absence of adequate competition and cost containment. Fundamental insurance market reforms and increased choice...should improve access and contribute to lower costs. However, should the private plans fail to meet specific availability and cost targets, a public option would be triggered and be allowed to compete on a level playing field subject to the conditions outlined above."
The trigger idea is one that's has purchase among conservative Democrats in the Senate, too. It's also an ideas that liberal Democrats call a non-starter. The gist is that the government would give insurance companies a few years to get with the program by meeting heretofore unknown cost-saving and coverage goals, and to only create a public option in the event that they miss their deadline. But triggers are often unsuccessful policy tools, and since liberals are basically running the health care show in the House, there's almost no chance that this will be written into their bill, an early version of which should be released in the next couple weeks.
It should be noted that the Blue Dogs aren't monolithic on this point. Already, Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Mike Michaud (D-ME) are distancing themselves from this statement--and several others have signaled in the past that they support a public option at the outset. But at the very least this demonstrates that there's still a considerable appetite among conservative Democrats for weakening or imperiling the public option.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Why, why does this all remind me of the months before the Iraq War?
Con games and hype, smoke and mirrors, shell games and spin, Democrats selling out their voters and enabling Republican law of the jungle extremism.
Blue Dogs defined: the Democrats who have allowed Republicans to destroy the American Dream and the American middleclass.
June 4, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I KNEW it reminded me of something...thanks, BB! A snowjob with fatalities, greed, no-bid contracts, and the overlying message:
IT'S INEVITABLE SO YOU BETTER VOTE FOR IT!
Very good observation!
June 4, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love the "snowjob with fatalities".
June 5, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said!
June 4, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the protest my sign will read:
Trigger is a horse, not a health plan.
June 4, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trigger is a dead horse, not a plan
June 5, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
and he probably had great medical care up to the end.
June 5, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
... from the proctologist? :)
June 5, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trigger ignites a WMD aimed at the health of the American middleclass.
June 4, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The availability of a public option would occur only as a fallback and in the absence of adequate competition and cost containment. Fundamental insurance market reforms and increased choice...should improve access and contribute to lower costs. However, should the private plans fail to meet specific availability and cost targets, a public option would be triggered and be allowed to compete on a level playing field subject to the conditions outlined above."
Couldn't they just simply that paragraph to:
SUCKER!
Everyone ought to make a copy of that paragraph and find a town meeting where they can ask their Congressman to please explain letter and punctuation mark.
June 4, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, the "level playing field" immediately kills any effect the public option would have. It means the public option would have to charge the same rates, provide identical coverage, with as many denials of care, and add in a huge profit/sales commission expense. It offers absolutely nothing to we who want a good health care program.
The only reason the insurance companies have not just withdrawn from this whole show, which is all it is, is their desire for a law making every last one of us buy their products. If you think they make obscene profits now, just wait.
I sent a letter a few weeks ago to both of my senators and my representative demanding that a real public option be in any bill they vote for, outlining what the insurance companies are up to now. So far only one response, and, as usual it was noncommital. But, we still all need to do something like that. Online petitions accomplish very little compared to lots of individual letters, so let's write them.
June 4, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope so. There's enough Blue Dogs to kill it if they vote as one.
June 4, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And some folks think there's a realistic chance to get single payer. LOL.
That said, I'm not worried about the House blocking the public option. The votes are there for it. I strongly believe that the only way we get it in the Senate is through the reconciliation process, possibly with Biden being the tie-breaker. Whatever. I'll take it any way I can get it.
June 4, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now they're saying the bill will be out this week. One day after they finally listened to single-payer activists? Oh, baby -- I am ready to march!
I even have a pitchfork, and I will raise it for single-payer! Just please schedule the march on a day I don't have to work, because I have to be there!
June 4, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one thing that would drag Congress into the real world, and get us the health care system we need is a real general strike. If we were able to shut down most of the industries and commercial establishments in this country for a few days the loss of profits it would cause might possibly force those wealthy money people to give in. Nothing less will do it, and as long as they don't give in, Congress won't give in. Congress knows more about where their campaign money comes from than we do.
June 4, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprises here really. There's almost a part of me that hopes they succeed, so we can revisit this in a few years and slam-dunk single payer down the throats of the insurance cos., pharma, and every one of these fuckers who obstructed the publicly funded option.
June 5, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
About that "trigger mechanism."
Basically the so-called "Free Market" Blue Dog Democrats want to take the opportunity to choose a public option plan away from the consumers and give it to (politically controlled) bureaucrats.
I guess the consumers aren't smart enough to make their own choices. Or the majority of the voters, either. So don't even let them have the option to choose the public option unless the bureaucrats (assigned by tye politicians) measure some arcane conditions and say the trigger has been met. Sure sounds like the worst flaws of socialism to me. That's all about politicians and bureaucrats making economic decisions better made by the consumers for themselves.
June 5, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the Blue dogs are giving us a public option by killin it! Oh, how they must march to orders of the insurance based lobbyists!
June 5, 2009 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are they afraid of? Or are they just protecting their Billy Tauzin priviledges?
This type of representation needs rebuke and a shove out the door.
June 5, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
NPR report earlier this week: 60% of bankruptcies from 2001 - 2006 were due to medical expenses. 75% of those were people who HAD health insurance.
My math ain't great, but doesn't that mean that 45% of bankruptcies occur with people who have insurance. And how many of us who have not faced catastrophic illness could be in the same place at any time?
June 5, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Policy Wonks - The Blue Dogs' "Level Playing Field" condition says:
"The public option must adhere to the same rules and regulations as all other plans. This includes: community rating; guaranteed issue; limits on marketing; risk adjustment; pre-existing condition exclusions; and transparency."
This is a key point.
If a coalition of Democrats is requiring pre-existing condition exclusions, can it be considered a legitimate Democratic claim? It's a rhetorical question, but a very legitimate concern. I have little objection to the bulk of this document, but would wholly oppose it based the PEC exlcusion condition.
Thoughts?
June 5, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink