Posts Tagged ‘public option’
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011
Vermont – the nation’s second smallest state with a population of just 625,741, according to the 2010 Census — is moving toward adopting a single-payer healthcare system. The House in the Green Mountain State recently passed a bill by a 92 – 49 vote that would set up a five-member board to design a benefits package that would be available to all Vermonters through a state insurance exchange. According to the legislation, “All Vermont residents shall be eligible for Green Mountain Care, a universal healthcare program that will provide health benefits through a single-payment system.”
The Senate is expected to approve the legislation and send it to Governor Peter Shumlin, who campaigned to reform the state’s healthcare system. At that point, Vermont would need a federal waiver to implement the plan, something that cannot be provided until 2017 under provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Nationally, single-payer healthcare, also known as Medicare for All, has proven popular in polls, but was rejected during the healthcare reform debate.
“This bill takes our state one step closer to a system that ensures that all Vermonters have access to the care they deserve and contains costs,” House Speaker Shap Smith said. According to Shumlin, passing a state-funded healthcare system would make Vermont “the first state in the country to make the first substantive step to deliver a system where healthcare will be a right and not a privilege, where healthcare will follow the individual, not be a requirement of the employer, and where we’ll have an affordable system that contains costs.” The so-called RomneyCare system in Massachusetts is the framework for the Affordable Care Act.
“We have a historic opportunity to fix a broken health care system,” said Representative Mark Larson (D-Burlington) and chairman of the House Health Care Committee. He said the goal is to “provide healthcare security to Vermonters” and decelerate the growth of healthcare costs. Supporters say the bill is designed to provide health insurance to the 47,000 Vermonters who don’t have coverage, provide better insurance to the more than 160,000 underinsured residents and cut costs. Opponents say that the state is moving too fast into uncharted territory. They say the proposed health system’s ultimate cost and how it would be funded aren’t made clear in the legislation.
One of Vermont’s leading opponents to Green Mountain Care is the Ethan Allen Institute, which describes itself as a free-market think tank. John McClaughry, the institute’s president, argues that public option supporters rely on three arguments — that healthcare is a human right and that there is significant unhappiness with the operation and financing of the current system. The third reason, he said, “is political and rarely stated. It will put the government in control of all employers, medical providers, insurers (if any), and patients. That will mean many more jobs for (unionized) government bureaucrats. It will require unionization of doctors and other professionals who will have to bargain with the public body over their compensation and working conditions. It will mean more campaign contributions and votes for politicians who will work to rig the system in favor of their particular group of ‘stakeholders.”
The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care disagrees. “Healthcare providers would be in a fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine,” according to the Coalition. One model of socialized medicine is the Veterans Administration’s (VA) network of hospitals, paid for by the government and managed by federal employees. Many veterans feel they receive better healthcare outcomes through the VA than at for-profit hospitals. Another model is TriCare, which administers the worldwide healthcare plan for 9.6 million eligible beneficiaries of the uniformed services, retirees and their families, also a superior system.
Tags: 2010 Census, compensation, Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care, Ethan Allen Institute, For-profit hospitals, Green Mountain Care, Green Mountain State, H.B. 202, healthcare reform law, Medicare for All, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Peter Shumlin, President Barack Obama, public option, RomneyCare, Senate, Shap Smith, Single-payer healthcare system, State insurance exchange, Tricare, Vermont, Veterans’ Administration, Working conditions
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010
The most egregious lie of the year, according to PolitiFact.com, is the suggestion that President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare reform law is a “government takeover of healthcare.” This is the opinion of PolitiFact.com, the St. Petersburg Times’ independent fact-checking website. In early 2009, Republican strategist Frank Luntz urged GOP legislators to call the bill a “government takeover.” According to Luntz, “Takeovers are like coups. They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.” PolitiFact’s runner-up lie was Representative Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) statement that President Obama’s trip to India would cost taxpayer $200 million a day.
Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said “The label ‘government takeover’ has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in healthcare as a ‘takeover’.” Although the new law increases government oversight of health insurance companies, it relies on private companies and the free market.
Others are in agreement with PolitiFact’s stance. The online magazine Slate said “the proposed healthcare reform does not take over the system in any sense.” Princeton University professor Uwe Reinhardt, a healthcare economics expert, wrote in the New York Times that “Yes, there would be a substantial government-mandated reorganization of this relatively small corner of the private health insurance market (that serves people who have been buying individual policies). But that hardly constitutes a government takeover of American healthcare.”
When a spokesman for incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) was asked about Republicans’ insistence on using the phrase – even now that it’s been thoroughly debunked – the response was “We believe that the job-killing ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of healthcare. That’s why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs.”
Tags: Fact.Check.org, Frank Luntz, Free market, GOP, healthcare reform legislation, John Boehner, Lies, Michael Steel, Michele Bachmann, New York Times, Obamacare, PolitiFact.com, President Barack Obama, public option, Slate, St. Petersburg Times, “Pants on Fire” rating
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »
Monday, May 3rd, 2010
Lost in the war of words about healthcare reform is a series of initiatives intended to prevent disease and promote healthier behavior. Under the new law, for example, chain restaurants will be required to provide nutrition information on their menus; nursing mothers must be given “reasonable break time” by their employers.
Americans on Medicare will be given free yearly “wellness” physicals to assess their overall condition and screen for symptoms of Alzheimer’s Disease. Medicaid will cover drugs and counseling to help pregnant women stop smoking. Additionally, a new federal trust fund will pay for bicycle paths, playgrounds, sidewalks and hiking trails to encourage exercise. These are just a few of the many provisions Congress added to the healthcare reform bill to reduce preventable diseases – and which ultimately could save the government money.
According to John R. Sefrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society, the new law will save lives because more people will be screened for diseases like breast and colon cancer. “When people have insurance, they are much more likely to receive screenings and treatment. And they are more likely to seek screenings when they do not have to pay co-payments or deductibles.” These screenings mean that diseases like cancer might be detected earlier when they are more easily treatable.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and chairman of the Senate health committee, points out that “we don’t have a healthcare system in America. We have a sick care system. If you get sick, you get care. But precious little is spent to keep people healthy in the first place.”
Tags: Alzheimer's Disease, American Cancer Society, Congress, Food and Drug Administration, health insurance companies, healthcare reform, healthy behavior, Kathleen Sebelius, Medicaid, Medicare, President Barack Obama, public option, wellness
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010
When President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law on July 30, 1965, he faced a year of nearly crippling attacks from groups like the American Medical Association (AMA) and conservatives who feared an onslaught of “socialized medicine” and threatened to boycott the new program. Although memories of the Medicare battle have faded over 45 years, similar battles could be fought over the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is the opinion of Dr. Atul Gawande, general and endocrine surgeon at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Associate Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School.
Writing in The New Yorker, Gawande notes that because most of the healthcare reform act’s provisions phase in at a slower pace than did Medicare, it is even more open to attack. “The context, of course, is different. The AMA endorsed the legislations; hospital associations were supportive. Once the public option was dropped, most insurers favored the bill. The medical world will wage no civil resistance. This time, the threat comes from party politics. Conservatives are casting the November midterm elections as a vote on repealing the health-reform law. If they regain power, they are unlikely to repeal the whole thing. Instead, they will try to strip out the critical but less straightforwardly appealing elements of reform – the requirement that larger employers provide health benefits and that uncovered individuals buy at least a basic policy; the subsidies to make sure that they can afford those policies; the significant new taxes on household incomes over $250,000 – and thereby gut coverage for the uninsured.”
Gawande notes that reform is hardly a government takeover of healthcare, as many opponents contend. Rather, its success relies on communities and clinicians. “We are the ones to determine whether costs are controlled and healthcare improves – which is to say, whether reform survives and resistance is defeated,” according to Gawande. “The voting is over, and the country has many other issues that clamor for attention. But, as L.B.J. would have recognized, the battle for healthcare reform has only begun.”
Tags: American Medical Association, Atul Gawande, conservatives, Harvard Medical School, Medicare, President Barack Obama, public option, socialized medicine, The New Yorker
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »
Tuesday, April 6th, 2010
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has warned insurance companies to stop hunting for loopholes as a way to get around complying with healthcare reform. Additionally, Sebelius intends to write regulations to assure that all insurers cover children with pre-existing conditions, even though some companies are adamant that this is not one of the new law’s requirements.
“The American people debated and discussed health insurance reform for more than a year. Congress and the President have acted. Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system,” Sebelius wrote in a letter to insurance industry lobbyist Karen Ignagni.
President Obama stressed the ban on denying children with pre-existing conditions as a focus of his argument during the reform fight. His position is that children should be protected almost immediately after the bill becomes law – in this case, next September. The insurance companies claim they don’t have to cover children with pre-existing conditions until 2014.
The insurers’ revolt over this presumed loophole could mean that progressive Democrats will reconsider adding a robust public option to the law. The insurance companies’ threat to turn down sick kids makes the case to include a public option significantly more credible.
Tags: Congress, Democrats, healthcare reform legislation, insurance companies, Karen Ignagni, Kathleen Seblius, President Barack Obama, Progressive Party, public option
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »
Monday, March 15th, 2010
Two Democratic Congressmen – Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) – may torpedo President Barack Obama’s efforts to reform the way healthcare is delivered in the United States. Both Congressmen are threatening to cross party lines and vote with House Republicans, who are united in their solid opposition to healthcare reform.
Kucinich justifies his “no” vote on the fact the legislation lacks a robust public option – a provision that the Republicans staunchly oppose – and describes the bill as a “giveaway” to the insurance companies. Republicans have called on the president to dump the bill, saying it is too expensive, complicated and burdensome on businesses and individuals who will be required to buy healthcare insurance, often with government subsidies.
Stupak is threatening to vote to defeat healthcare reform for an entirely different reason. His objection is that the legislation might allow federal funds to be used to reimburse patients for abortions. “Yes. We’re prepared to take responsibility,” Stupak said on “Good Morning America” when asked if he and 11 other Democrat were willing to accept the consequences for bringing down healthcare reform over abortion. “Let’s face it. I want to see healthcare. But we’re not going to bypass the principles of belief that we feel strongly about,” he said.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated that when it comes to this issue, the administration merely wants to maintain the status quo and believes that Stupak ultimately will be persuaded to vote with his fellow Democrats. “This is not a bill about abortion. This is about healthcare reform,” Gibbs said.
Tags: abortion, acceptable healthcare coverage, Bart Stupak, Congress, Dennis Kucinich, healthcare reform, House of Representatives, President Barack Obama, public option, Republicans, Robert Gibbs, Senate, Stupak Amendment
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »
Monday, February 1st, 2010
Some Democrats think legislating in baby steps to achieve healthcare reform is their best option now that the party has lost its 60-vote super majority with Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts to fill Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat.
According to Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr., (D-NJ), some House Democrats are proposing an incremental approach to fix the healthcare system via multiple pieces of legislation instead of a single all-encompassing bill. The goal would remain to reform insurance coverage, assure patients’ rights and improve the way that healthcare is delivered. Pascrell envisions introducing three or four bills in quick succession. The legislation would encompass the least controversial elements of the broader reform package now stalled in Congress.
Pascrell believes that his measures might garner some Republican support because they would eliminate the public option, individual insurance mandates and entitlement programs. Pascrell notes that “You can blame the Senate all you want, but we are our own worst enemy. We do everything in mega-fashion. We need to do it in mini-fashion.”
Tags: 60 vote super majority, Bill Pascrell Jr, Democrats, entitlement programs, filibuster, healthcare reform, House of Representatives, individual insurance mandates, public option, Republicans, Scott Brown, Ted Kennedy
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »
Thursday, January 7th, 2010
Why did Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) threaten to filibuster and insist on dropping the public option and a Medicare buy-in for people aged 55 – 64 in the healthcare reform bill? Even more puzzling is the fact that Lieberman had supported a public option as recently as this past September. Lieberman, who may classify as a liberal, is pro-choice and supports some gay rights, angered Democrats in his home state of Connecticut when he openly campaigned for Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin in the 2008 presidential election.
In The Guardian, Chris McGreal writes that “Now, in the view of some, he is plumbing new depths of betrayal by using his deciding vote as an independent member of the Senate to hold hostage Barack Obama’s reform of America’s dysfunctional healthcare system. Lieberman’s tactics have upset Democratic party members of Congress who are asking why a popular president’s agenda is being stalled by a senator who has repeatedly turned his back on his old party.”
Critics see Lieberman’s opposition to the public option as a result of his acceptance of approximately $1 million in campaign donations from the medical insurance industry – many of which are headquartered in his home state — over his 21-year Senate career. Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah, works for a lobbying firm as its health and pharmaceutical specialist. Her previous employers include big pharma companies Pfizer and Hoffmann-LaRoche. Lieberman’s supporters thought he was “genuinely an independent” who agrees “more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy,” Lieberman once told Fox News.
According to McGreal, “Detractors paint a picture of a vain, bitter man still stung by his rejection by Democratic voters who came close to scuppering his Senate career three years ago and now reveling in the power he wields to block Obama’s first piece of major legislation.” Lieberman says he is not acting out of spite. “That’s just poppycock,” he said. “If I had any sense of vendetta against the Democratic party, I wouldn’t be in the Democratic caucus today.”
Tags: filibuster, Hadassah Lieberman, healthcare reform, insurance industry, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, pfizer, President Barack Obama, public option, Sarah Palin, Senate
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »
Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Declaring that “failure is not an option” on healthcare reform, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said that the legislation will be passed with or without Republican support. “We’re not going to not pass a bill,” Schumer said, pointing to a healthcare system that is broken because some 47 million Americans lack any kind of insurance coverage.
Before this can happen, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has the task of resolving issues within his own party regarding abortion, taxes and allowing the government to sell health insurance in competition with private insurers. Democratic leaders are working to persuade Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME) to cross party lines and vote in favor of the ultimate bill, even though she sided with her fellow Republicans on the recent procedural vote to move the debate to the full Senate floor.
Both the Senate and House of Representatives bills require all Americans to have healthcare insurance, and plan to make government subsidies available to help pay premiums. Insurance companies would be banned from denying coverage or charging extra for individuals with pre-existing conditions. New insurance marketplaces would be created for those Americans who have difficulty finding affordable coverage – such as the self-employed and those who own small businesses. Americans who currently have employer-provided coverage won’t see any big changes in their coverage. Senior citizens will see improvement in their prescription coverage.
As for paying for these bills? The House bill depends primarily on an income tax hike on upper-income individuals. The Senate bill would tax Cadillac insurance plans, increase the Medicare payroll tax for the wealthy and mandate fees on medical industries.
Tags: Blue Dog Democrats, Cadillac insurance plans, Democrats, Healthcare, House of Representatives, Medicaid, Medicare, President Barack Obama, public option, Republican, Senate, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Olympia Snowe
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009
Healthcare reform’s worst news could be former vice presidential candidate Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who is threatening to join a Republican filibuster should a public option in any form be included in the final legislation. Senators possibly joining Lieberman in opposing a public option are Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is exploring compromise measures with his 60-member caucus.
So opposed is Lieberman that he has vowed to filibuster the ultimate bill if it contains any form of public option. This includes “the trigger” or “fallback” that is favored by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Under this plan, the trigger would let states opt out of a public plan. Lieberman also opposes Senator Tom Carper’s (D-DE) “the hammer”, which would allow states to opt into a public plan. Blue Dog Democrats like Landrieu have expressed some support for both “the trigger” and “the hammer”.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) remains optimistic. “I think that what happens is there are two weeks, three weeks, whatever, of debate. Senator Lieberman, everybody gets a chance to offer amendments. I don’t want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it’s not going to be in it,” he said, noting that a majority of the American people support a public option. According to Brown, the four dissenters will “look at this bill in the end and say, I don’t think they want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t think they want to go back and say, you know, on a procedural vote, ‘I killed the most important bill in my political career.’ I don’t think they want to be there on that. So I think in the end, we get them.”
Pat of the dilemma, the Democrats find themselves in is that two Democrats – Roland Burris and Bernie Sanders – have vowed not to vote for the bill if there’s no public option.
Tags: Blue Dog Democrats, filibuster, healthcare reform, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Michael Steele, Olympia Snowe, President Barack Obama, public option, Senator Harry Reid, Tom Carper
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »