Sebelius: Health Care Legislation Must Lower Costs--And It's Hard To Do That Without A Public Option
After yesterday's press conference, reporters are understandably trying to get a clearer sense from the administration on whether the president's obvious personal preference for a public option will ultimately translate into an ultimatum to Congress demanding one.
Here's Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius fielding one such question.
"One of his bottom lines is, he refuses to talk about any plan that really doesn't lower costs. And if you have a monopoly in the marketplace, it's very difficult to lower costs."
That may be the closest we'll get to an answer at this point--but the idea here is that Obama a). wouldn't support a plan that doesn't lower costs, and b). finds it hard to believe
that a reform proposal without a public plan would succeed at lowering costs. Ergo.... we wait for the CBO, I guess. But Obama's been pretty clear that he's going to keep his powder dry publicly until the process in Congress reaches greater maturity.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
I have no problem with Obama saying he's open to ideas other than a public option. What he's really saying is "show me". If you think you have a better plan, prove it to me. There's nothing wrong with being open-minded. The bottom line is, though, exactly as Sebelius says. There's no way to get from here to there without the public option.
June 24, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. We have to hope that the emergence of Secretary Sibelius in the public debate is a signal that the Obama administration is about to stop toe dancing with Republican obstructionists and blue dog Democrats and push through a bill with a public option. I agree with the principle of seeking bipartisan accord and a broad base of support within the Democratic party. But, we have a majority of the votes. So move on to the budget reconciliation stage, if necessary.
I am one of many loyal Democrats who campaigned and donated for Hope and for Change. I expect to get it, not because I have to get my way, but because that is the specific platform we campaigned for and which won the election. I am in the majority in a democracy. We have tried to enlarge that majority through debate and compromise. It that does not work, too bad. We fall back to the wishes of that smaller, original majority. The price paid by the minority for not playing ball.
One more point. I still lobby hard for the Democratic leadership's policies, and I have a monthly pledge paid to the Democratic Central Committee. If we don't get health care reform that covers all Americans at an affordable cost and a good climate bill, my checks stop coming and I stop making phone calls. Time to deliver.
June 24, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. Very well stated.
June 25, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's hard to lower costs without a "public option."
Impossible without single payer.
June 25, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think, given the fact that health insurance premiums have doubled over the last decade at an unsustainable rate three times faster than wages, the status more than 97% of all Massachusetts residents,the highest in the U.S., are now covered could be touted as success model, which features 'mandating insurance' and an option to purchase coverage through the "Connector," a program in which private insurers are required to offer coverage to those who can't get other insurance, regardless of age or health status.
But the Massachusetts model has a problem with costs control, because it relies exclusively on private insurers as Massachusetts' insurers implemented average premium increases of 8% to 12% only in 2008. And it highlights the necessity of having a publicly financed insurance option
To be sure, in case the president's proposal with respect to the strong public option, medical IT, increased efforts in prevention, and a broader array of cost-saving plans and beyond adds to the Massachusetts Plan with the provision of employer mandate and an individual mandate, the cost containment does not matter at all. And most importantly, the promising stem cell research is making its way.
Human health, in a sense, may precede all the other basic human rights as everything means nothing for someone without it. As far as my common sense goes, the major role of government will be to protect basic rights of the public from any threat. That is why all of the industrialized countries have public policy in place, I guess.
Under this premise, the strong public option needs to be cited as a part of 'PROTECTION' like anti-trust law rather than intervention.
The intention to introduce the public choice would be to protect the uninsured, economy and keep the medical industry honest, not be to drive it out.
Hopefully, the health industry can provide reasonable,fair, competitive prices and quality service via tireless innovations like most of the EUROPE, instead of concerning about its monopoly prices, otherwise the forthcoming health start-ups will likely fill in the blanks with competitive terms over time.
June 27, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink