The Incredible Shrinking Public Option

[Better Believe It]

The Incredible Shrinking Public Option
By Robert Parry
November 2, 2009
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book is, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush. His two previous books are, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'

When the U.S. health care debate began last spring, the insurance industry and its congressional defenders fretted over the prospect that 119 million Americans might defect from private insurance to a public option, thus devastating the business model of wealthy insurance companies.

Corralling the Public Option

The most important concession came when the public option was barred from competing with private insurers for their most lucrative contracts, those with large employers. The public option was confined to insurance “exchanges,” which would start in 2013 only for uninsured individuals and small businesses.

That concession slashed the prospect of defecting clients from the 119 million – predicted in an industry-backed study by the Lewin Group – to about 10 million to 12 million Americans who, the CBO said, would choose the lower-cost “robust” public option on the exchanges.

The death of that “robust” version in the House leadership’s bill trimmed the likely clientele for the public option to about half that number, to around six million, according to the CBO.

In another favor to the insurance industry, the surviving House and Senate bills put off competition from any public option until 2013, granting the private insurers another three-plus years of their continued cartel-like control of the health-insurance sector.

The current Senate bill, which was cobbled together by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, offers another concession regarding the public option, a provision that would let states opt out. Reid included the opt-out clause in hopes of convincing several conservative Democrats to at least vote against a Republican filibuster and let the Senate proceed with the legislation.

But the opt-out clause means that some conservative states may bar their residents from signing up for the public option, thus possibly reducing the number of public option enrollees to less than six million.

Still, it’s hard to see why private insurers would object to inclusion of the weakened public option because the insurance industry already would be in line to get the bulk of the new customers, people compelled to buy insurance or face fines and who also might qualify for government subsidies that would go to insurance companies for policies offered on the insurance exchanges.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/110209.html

[ej510]

1. Democrats will continue to sell out to special interest until they pass real campaign

finance reform. Federally financed elections.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. True, but how can we ever get them to pass that? Here in Maine it's only

optional. Our candidates for federal offices never choose it.

[ej510]

3. The truth is it's not just financed campaigns by special interest. It's

the conflict of interest with friends and family members receiving special treatment by our congress. It is one big cesspool.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Utterly contemptible.

[jgraz]

4. The UnrecBots are at it again

This is important information. Why do people want to hide the truth?

[ej510]

6. Because it doesn't make Obama look good.

[Better Believe It]

8. Conservative "centrist" Dems need to portray the health insurance industry legislation as "progress"

in order to sell it. They don't want hard facts getting in the way of their propaganda.

They don't want people to know the truth about legislation that has been written by the health insurance industry and bigPharm.

[ej510]

9. The Insurance Industry loves the shit Public Option, but

like you said they need the democratic party to sell this pile of shit to the nation, so the Insurance Industry is pretending to hate this piece of shit legislation; which they wrote.

[Better Believe It]

10. Public option ..... going, going, gone!

[ProSense]

7. These article are going to serve the purpose of mainstreaming a public option

Still, it’s hard to see why private insurers would object to inclusion of the weakened public option because the insurance industry already would be in line to get the bulk of the new customers...

Yes, why would insurers oppose it? I have a suspicion, but as long as people see reform as merely leveling the playing field, fine.

[SpartanDem]

11. The public option can be opened to any employer

at the discretion of the HHS Secretary after 3 years and while it doesn't start until 2013 many of thr regulations like the 85% medical loss ratio and rescission will start immediately. This article is about as fair and balance as a Fox News story.

[Better Believe It]

12. So anything to the left of Fox News is not fair in your opinion?

The article takes sides, our side. I don't object to that.

Post links to articles that don't take sides, non-partisan or bi-partisan bull crap.

DU supports progressive and liberals issues so yes DU takes sides. You don't like DU because it also is not "fair and balanced"?

[SpartanDem]

13. No

Who sides it takes is irrelevant, what matters most is whether intentional or through shoddy journalism is not completely accurate. Noting that large employer kept out a fist, but not mentioning they can let in or leaving the impression that not reform take place until creates very different picture.

[uponit7771]

14. Yeap, when information is omitted or half truths are told it's time to unrec