Progressives Successfully Pressure Reid on Public Option
Score one for progressive pressure.
Harry Reid and Barack Obama seemed primed for junking the public option until progressive forces rallied their troops and flexed their muscles.
A group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, at boldprogressives.org, even ran an ad in Nevada, putting Reid on the hot seat.
Other groups, including the AFL-CIO, let the Democrats know, in no uncertain terms, that we would not settle for less than a public option.
Progressive talk radio also played a part, with Ed Schultz, especially, banging away day in and day out on this issue for months.
Sen. Dick Durbin acknowledged the effect of the campaign on the Democratic leadership.
The toughness of progressive Senators like Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold and Tom Harkin, who held their ground for a public option, also was instrumental.
Helping the progressive cause, too, was a series of recent polls that showed—wonders of wonders!—that the public actually wants the public option.
But what kind of public option will it be?
First off, the opt-out choice will weaken the clout of the public option if many states take it.
And second, how soon will the public option be available?
And third, how many of us can join it?
We’ll have to check the fine print, but Obama’s public option was paltry, allowing only those without health insurance to join.
But if you’re getting private insurance through your employer, even lousy insurance, you won’t be able to get Obama’s public option.
And what 65 percent of Americans actually prefer is the ability to join Medicare. They favor a system of Medicare for All Who Want It, according to a New York Times/CBS poll last month.
So the Reid bill, while preferable to a “trigger” or to co-ops (which still may be in the bill, by the way), is a far cry from the most sensible solution.
That would be Medicare for All.
And the next best idea, Medicare for All Who Want It, isn’t on the table, either.
But Reid and Obama have gone farther than I thought they were, so I’ll eat half a plate of crow.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
| We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
| The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
| March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Comments
Gotta love progressives.
The Senate Finance Committee bill (generally called the Baucus bill, after Chairman Max Baucus) robs the elderly to cover the uninsured -- like snatching purses from little old ladies. The House bills already cut future funding for Medicare by $500 billion over the next decade. The Baucus bill would slash a similar amount, just when 30 percent more people enter the program as baby boomers turn 65.
The Baucus bill also puts new limits on what doctors can do for patients in Medicare:
* A 'race to the bottom' provision (p. 102 of the revised chairman's mark) would take effect each year for the next five years. The provision penalizes doctors who end up in the 90th percentile or above on the cost of what they use to treat their patients, compared with national averages. The intent is to force down the cost of care, year by year. Yet this blunt instrument can't determine which care is actually wasteful -- it will punish doctors for treating high cost patients with complex conditions. Inevitably, it will lower the quality of care.
* Even more devastating is the amendment Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) got inserted into the bill (revised chairman's mark, pp. 102-3). It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to define quality, cost-effective care for each medical condition and penalize doctors who spend more on their patients.
The law establishing Medicare in 1965 barred the federal government from interfering in doctors' treatment decisions. Slowly, Medicare regulations have begun unraveling that protection. Now the Cantwell amendment finishes the job.
This is the most extreme change to Medicare ever. Dr. David McKalip, a Florida neurosurgeon and a board member of the Florida Medical Association, predicts: 'The only doctors left in Medicare will be those willing to ration care and practice cookbook medicine.'
It's reasonable for Medicare administrators to strive to get value for dollars spent. In recent years, Medicare has taken a slow, tight-fisted (and sometimes arbitrary) approach to paying for new drugs or medical devices. But Cantwell aims directly at doctors' decisions.
That's not surprising. President Obama and his advisers vilify doctors for over-treating patients. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a key Obama health-care adviser, argues that the Hippocratic Oath is largely to blame for the 'overuse' of medical care.
In his view, doctors focus too much on the needs of their own patients; they should be taught to ask whether the money they're spending on a patient is worth it. To curb doctors' spending, the stimulus legislation launched a process of sending doctors protocols via computer on what the government deems 'appropriate' and 'cost-effective' care. Doctors who are not 'meaningful users' will be punished financially.
Death panels indeed!