Via AP at TL, the Dems are about to craft the public option. Or not:
Senators are considering three options for a new government health insurance plan that middle-income Americans could buy into for the first time.
Congressional officials familiar with the proposals told The Associated Press Friday that senators plan to debate the three options during a closed meeting next week. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the controversial plans have not been officially released.
One would look like Medicare. Another would be based on Medicare, but administered by an outside party. The third would leave it up to the states to set up a public insurance plan for residents.
Insurers say a public plan would put them out of business and Republicans say it would be a dealbreaker in reforming health care.
So, will any single payer advocates be at the table? Say, Bernie Saunders? Since he's introduced a bill, you'd think that Senatorial courtesy and comity would at least consider the idea.
UPDATE More detail here:
A recent report by the Lewin Group, a numbers-crunching firm that serves government and private clients, found that a new government plan could radically alter that landscape — or maybe not.
It depends on the design.
If the public plan were open to all employers and individuals — and if it paid doctors and hospitals the same as Medicare — it would quickly grow to 131 million members, while enrollment in private insurance plans would plummet, the study found.
By paying Medicare rates the government plan would be able to set premiums well below what private plans charge. Employers and individuals would rush to sign up.
But the results would be far different if the government plan was limited to small employers, individuals and the self-employed.
In that smaller-scale scenario, the public plan would get from 17 million to 43 million members, the study said. It found that a government plan could be effective in reducing number of uninsured.
Lewin is a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare, the nation's largest health insurer. The consulting firm says it makes its own judgments, however. Its work is used by groups on all sides of the health care debate, including supporters of a public plan.
You say "put the insurance companies out of business" like that's a bad thing!
UPDATE More on The Lewin Group from Jacob Hacker. I think they bear watching. The Dems are a lot more subtle than the Republicans.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
controversial
gee, i wonder why.
I think you'll find these interesting.
http://www.fleshandstone.net/healthandsc...
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/72/30256/uni...
http://rtacpa.blogs.com/reedtinsley/2008...
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/referen...
If you think they're not using the Lewin Group to stack the deck, well....
i'm not quite sure what hacker's point is
[btw, there's already been one discussion of the lewin group thingy here at the mighty corrente bldg. mad props to dcblogger.]
the lewin group analysis appears to be a generic analysis of a generic demoplan, sort of along the lines of nichols and bertko modest proposal, that's likely to come out of the
food fightsdicussion amongst all the dem coporatocrats.the modest propsal came out in march 2009 and it looks to me like it fairly accurately echoes what the conservadems who are worried about a 'level playing field' between public and private insurance are likely to come up with. the lewin group analysis, of something resembling a standard fehbp plan, came out in april 2009.
hacker's proposal, its latest iteration anyway, was published waaaay back in january 2009, so i kind of doubt the lewin group analysis is really about hacker's plan, especially since they'd already done one analysis of his plan [one of his earlier iterations, i think].
further, it's not like any of the dems have been exactly forthcoming in what their idea of a 'public plan' should be, or even if they'll allow one. just how in the heck was the lewin group supposed to model a figment of senators' fevered imaginations anyway? my reading of what's been leaking out is that hacker's plan is way too liberal for the good senators' tastes, and i further surmise that the lewin group thought so too when doing their latest analysis.
I talked to some of the people involved in the negotiations...
And found out the reason they're pushing for a plan based on Medicare (but different) is because focus groups, particularly those in the key states (i.e where their senators are still on the fence about the public plan) have a very negative response to the idea of Medicare for all.
Why? Because ever since the Bush-imposed pharmaceutical "benefit" was added, those they polled said Medicare actually cost their parents a lot more. (Which is certainly true for a lot of people now.)
Also, people have a negative reaction to Medicare because of the confusing paperwork with which their parents (and thus, the kids) deal.
Hence, the compromise.
So when people are saying they want to keep the insurance they have now, they mean they think it's a lot easier to use than Medicare.