New poll shows massive support for real public option (updated)

Dems better not cave... (4.00 / 1)

...Because if they do, this could be, if you'll pardon the sports metaphor, the 1994 baseball strike all over for me, meaning I may never vote Dem again -- or at least take a 13 year hiatus before returning to he game -- at least on the sidelines anyway.

As my partner says, weakness must be crushed. Speaking of which (weakness, not Karen), it appears Tom Daschle has gone on the record saying he supports dropping the public support option if that is what it takes to get the bill passed. Thank Uncle Sam he never made it into Obama's cabinet.

"For every political action, there is an equal but opposite satiric reaction." Political Fallout: http://www.political-fallout.blogspot.com/

---

by: tmlindsey @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 22:28:57 PM CDT

Daschle backpedaled somewhat (0.00 / 0)

on that statement (saying he really is for a public option), but I don't like whatever game he's playing. We are definitely better off without him in the cabinet.

On the one hand, Democrats would be monumentally stupid not to seize the chance to pass a strong public option, given what polls are showing.

On the other hand, when you see how much money the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have spent to buy influence in Congress, it's a miracle we even have a shot at getting this bill through.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 08:54:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Enter: Campaign Finance Reform (4.00 / 1)

Stage Left...

That's another point that chaps my hide, my private insurer Hellmark (I'm in the process of finding a new carrier by the way) spending a chunk of my premium money on lobbyists when it could be used to drive down my premium costs.

With full control of both houses and the White house, I'm not going to let the Dems off the hook for this one.

Grow a spine and do what's morally right and do what you were elected to do -- or don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Stage Right...  

"For every political action, there is an equal but opposite satiric reaction." Political Fallout: http://www.political-fallout.blogspot.com/

---

by: tmlindsey @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 15:48:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I saw that Wellmark (0.00 / 0)

was in the news this week:

Iowa's dominant health insurance company has nearly doubled the pay of its leader in the past five years, to $2.5 million in 2008.

Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield board members say John Forsyth's compensation is justified by the company's growth and service improvements under his leadership as president and chief executive officer.

But critics say Forsyth's pay is an example of the waste they see in America's private health insurance system. [...]

Wellmark dominates the Iowa health insurance market, providing or administering policies to 51 percent of people who have private coverage here, according to the state insurance division. That's more than six times the market share of the next largest competitor in Iowa. However, the competitors include much larger, national companies, whose top executives make more than Wellmark's leader.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:33:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hellmark (4.00 / 1)

I read this earlier...

Not only is Wellmark/Blue Cross Blue Shield one of the largest financed lobby contingents in D.C. trying to squash any public option, but they've effectively priced me out of the market. My premiums have shot up 50% in the last two years, with no major medical catastrophe for myself and/or 3 sons. And these rate increases is even more than Forsyth's doubled salary/bonuses.

Ironically, he earned the bonuses for bringing in so many new members, which you would think would bring down the rest of rates, but is spent feeding the Fat Cats. If not, where did all the money go...?

"For every political action, there is an equal but opposite satiric reaction." Political Fallout: http://www.political-fallout.blogspot.com/

---

by: tmlindsey @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 21:34:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

efficiency revisited (0.00 / 0)

I'll continue here with what got started in the 'fake' public option diary.

By cost savings through efficiency, I mean the happy-talk one hears from most politicians eager to promote a free market perspective of 'reforming' by improved demand-supply matching, the most well-known case in public policy being energy deregulation. All the buzz words and phrases are there: innovation through IT; "consumer-directed" system through choice, and so on.

Assessing health outcomes is desirable from a public policy viewpoint, but the scale of research and modeling required precludes a determination of 'savings' in the near term. I think there's near universal agreement on this.

So, I have no quibble with the CBO not including these nebulous "savings" -- whether from market-(consumer) driven efficiencies or greater efficiency in care delivery via statistical analysis of health outcomes as a function of treatment recommendations.

I did read the article you mentioned, perhaps a couple of weeks ago. My conclusion on the comparison between McAllen TX and Mayo was that the article simply underscored the fundamental problem: for-profit, investor-dominated health care vs salaried caregivers in a non-profit environment. When you say that it's perhaps beyond the scope of federal reform -- yes, as long as the reform focus is only on coverage and not on (real) cost control.

During the primary, I also supported universal coverage/public option proposals of the JRE/HRC mold with the idea that the public plan represented a bona fide cost control measure.

I changed my mind when Obama switched his platform from 'no mandate/public option' to 'universal mandate/no public option.' It's the worst of all possible worlds.

What I mean by no public option is that in all the materials I've received from OFA requesting my support/assistance, there's no mention of a public option. Now, I am aware that he has reiterated support in some public statements, but clarity on this issue is frequently obscured by some administration official undermining the administration's resolve for a strong public option. It's the first in line as 'negotiable.'

So I can't help but feel that advocacy for single-payer (not necessarily all the details of HR676) is the right way to go. This is my worst-case scenario:

1. That organization around the 'public option' (instead of single-payer) leads to the CW that a public option represents an extreme, rather than the middle ground that was originally intended by cautious Democratic politicians!

2. That this so-called 'crowdsourcing' is more or less busy work designed to spur an emotional investment in 'winning' some sort of health reform rather than establishing real benchmarks for accountability. I don't doubt that some of the individual activists (say, Dr. Dean) mean what they say, but I'm looking at this more as a social phenomenon, where the disgruntled, usually people like us, are always called upon to suck it up and deal with 'perfect enemy of the good' type arguments. That's the blogosphere in a nutshell -- lots of saber-rattling, a crescendo, and then everyone reaches for a cigarette. It's already there in some responses to your diaries elsewhere -- the notion that vigilance over the public option represents some sort of lack of faith rather than good, old-fashioned, healthy advocacy for a policy plank.

3. That the Dem pols will say all the right things, like Dodd with his upcoming race, but through a combination of the dat ole debbil Blue Dog strategy plus frightening reports of associated costs, we will be herded to a faux public option, hence RomneyCare.  

---

by: ragbrai08 @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 00:09:53 AM CDT