The Note
Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet

Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.

To email Rick Klein, click here.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

« Previous | Main | Next »

Liberals Call Govt. Health Option Non-Negotiable

December 17, 2008 4:16 PM

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: Advocates of a government alternative to private health insurance fired the first shot of the new battle to reform the nation’s health-care system on Wednesday, saying that efforts to water down this key component of Barack Obama’s health-care plan should be rejected by members of Congress.

“In the absence of a public plan you would have to so strictly regulate [private] health plans that they would all have to become public plans,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., chairman of the House Ways and Means Health sub-committee.

Stark spoke out on Wednesday because he is concerned that any effort to reform the private health-insurance market will prove ineffective if Americans are not offered the kind of Medicare-style government option contained in Obama’s 2008 campaign proposal.

Stark’s concerns were echoed by Health Care Now, a liberal advocacy group.

“We agree with Congressman Stark that a health care solution that does not include a public plan would be a non-starter,” said Richard Kirsch, the national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now. “President-elect Obama ran on the promise of giving consumers a choice of keeping the private insurance they have or opting in to a newly-created public insurance plan, and it is the second part of this hybrid reform that ensures we are no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry which keeps charging us more, giving us less, and lining its own pockets with profits.”

The California congressman made his remarks on a conference call with reporters sponsored by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future. A spokesman for the progressive advocacy group told ABC News that it was targeting the insurance industry because a spokesman for the industry’s trade association recently criticized the public health option contained in Obama’s health-care plan.

“[A] public option ... would not achieve the type of goals on improving coverage and improving access, and making healthcare coverage more affordable,” Robert Zirkelbach, the spokesman for the insurance industry’s trade group, told the American Prospect magazine on Nov. 20.

Asked to explain the insurance industry’s policy rationale for opposing a public health insurance option, Zirkelbach pointed to a recent study on cost-shifting by Milliman showing that public health programs underpay health-care providers who then over-charge patients with private health insurance.

Stark dismissed the insurance industry’s claim that health-care providers are underpaid by government health-care programs like Medicare.

“Most private plans are poorly managed,” said Stark. “They’re the General Motors of medical care. Medicare is paying the right amount.”

While saying that he hopes to assemble a coalition which includes doctors, hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry, Stark indicated that he is less concerned about winning the support of insurers.

"They’re the easiest to roll because no one likes insurance companies,” said Stark. “I guess someone has to be the bad guys.”

Joining Stark on Wednesday’s call was Prof. Jacob Hacker who directs the Center on Health, Economic, and Family Security at U.C. Berkeley’s School of Law. Hacker discussed a study he recently conducted which concluded that a public health option would ensure universal access to health coverage while exerting downward pressure on prices in the private health insurance market.

Hacker, author of “The Great Risk Shift,” has been at the forefront of designing and promoting a hybrid health-care system which builds on the existing system of employer-provide insurance while creating a Medicare-style government alternative. During the 2008 Democratic primaries, variations of Hacker’s hybrid approach were proposed not only by eventual nominee Obama but also by top rivals Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

December 17, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (22)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As long as people eat gmo, processed, pesticide laden, nutrient free foods why provide universal health care? People are obese for a reason and obesity related disease are everywhere.

Posted by: Huh | Dec 17, 2008 4:33:51 PM

So Huh, all fat folks ought to just curl up and die?! Shame on you. Part of any health care system should be nutrition education. That simply is not available to poor people, people with no health insurance, and people with no access to health care other than emergency rooms. So, Huh, that's why we should have universal health care.

Posted by: hang | Dec 17, 2008 4:45:02 PM

hang - Curl up and die? Are you kidding me. I would recommend the opposite. How about throwing the soft drinks in the trash, get on the treadmill and do something. If you have joint problems get in a pool. The reason I am a cynic on this topic is that I try and educate those around me and they could care less. So ya, I stand by my first statement. By 2030 when medicare, medicaid and social security surpass our GDP and people can't get any health care, maybe they will start to listen to those that have bothered to follow the libertarian mantra of personal responsibility.

Posted by: Huh | Dec 17, 2008 4:52:50 PM

Universal Heathcare....Yep another foolish experiment that has failed everywhere its been tried. Go to these countries that claim to have it. As bad as our system is at times, it is still better than what you find in these other countries. We need work...no question about it, but total universal healthcare for every single person in this country??

Its a nice idea....but before you scream about it, look very closely at the problems created by it in those countries where its been tried. No solution to heathcare is perfect, so get that out of your mind right from the start and you will understand it better.

Posted by: Mike_C | Dec 17, 2008 4:55:45 PM

I wish people understood that the government getting into the healthcare insurance business (Medicare) is what got us into this mess in the first place. You can trace the problem from the introduction of Medicare in the 1960's -> the Medicare Cost Report (which has rules more arcane than the IRS tax code) -> cost shifting by providers to commercial insurances -> Medicare PPS -> commericial insurances fighting back -> HMO's and so on.... (Yes, I know that some HMO's existed prior to the introduction of Medicare, but the problems didn't begin until after). The LAST thing we need if for the federal government to get MORE involved in healthcare.

Posted by: ellsbells930 | Dec 17, 2008 9:49:27 PM

Its a nice idea....but before you scream about it, look very closely at the problems created by it in those countries where its been tried. No solution to heathcare is perfect, so get that out of your mind right from the start and you will understand it better.

Posted by: Mike_C | Dec 17, 2008 4:55:45 PM
________________________________________
First off Mike the person who needs to get educated on what goes on in other countries is you and your right wing cronies. All any of you do is repeat the garbage you've been told about what goes on in other countries. Lets be honest here, you really have no clue.

I have a very close personal friend who was born and raised here but now lives and works in Japan. He tells me their Universal System puts ours to shame. He gets good care which is readily available and pays very little for it.

Certainly they have a graduated taxation system which funds the program and that is really what people here are afraid of. They disguise it under the cloud of poor access and long lines but it's really about who's pocket the money comes from. The reality of it is this: the more you make the more you pay and the selfish, greedy, and self centered don't want to hear it.

Posted by: dk | Dec 18, 2008 2:18:51 AM

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Deborah

http://termlifeinsurance2.com

Posted by: Deborah | Dec 18, 2008 10:04:20 PM

Mike_C, What YOU don't understand is that Medicare is the one thing we have done RIGHT in this country in the whole last century with regard to health care. We need to expand it to cover EVERYONE.

The private health insurance industry needs to go the way of the buggy whip. They add NOTHING of value to the health care transaction and on the contrary unfairly rip us off outrageous premiums so they can run things as they want to, cruelly denying care as they rake in obscene profits. They don't deserve to make profit, and they are an unneccessary middleman. The Government needs to regulate them MORE or get rid of them altogether. People complain they don't want higher taxes. The amount they will be taxed for this will be far lower than what they are paying now in health insurance premiums, and we can't vote out their CEOs.

Posted by: foxy | Dec 19, 2008 5:11:24 PM

For some enlightenment and also entertainment, FREE goto( or just click on) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/main.html You'll come away better informed and angry.

Posted by: Dave Cox | Dec 19, 2008 11:14:26 PM

The only worthwhile plan is a single-payer, National Health Insurance plan as outlined in House Resolution 676, already in Congress. Search HR676 and/or single-payer for all the answers to your questions and doubts.

Posted by: Dave Cox | Dec 19, 2008 11:18:40 PM

My apologies: Left out the word view goto http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/main.html Hope it's right this time.

Posted by: Dave Cox | Dec 19, 2008 11:25:00 PM

I have read detailed reports by Americans who have lived in and experienced the universal health care systems of Canada, England, France, Italy and Sweden and they all praise the accessability, cost, and quality of those systems. Claims to the contrary are obvious radical Republican right wing-nut BS. The simple facts are that we now already pay ywice what they do for next to the lowest quality healthcare in the western world and our employer provided insurance system makes our business noncompetetive among all the rest of the world's businesses. So for example car engines and parts are manufactured in Canada instead of the US because here it costs $1500 per car for health insurance and there the taxpayer pays - and here that leaves out 47 million citizens altogether. Also consider that health catastrophies are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy declkarations. In those everyone involved loses out financially. The only system for our nation is the only one that puts people's health first - not the bottom line and huge executive salaries: Single Payer Universal Healthcare.

Posted by: Robert von Tobel | Dec 20, 2008 1:59:17 AM

Thanks for the nice stuff on these things.

Posted by: Acai | Dec 20, 2008 5:40:08 AM

It is time to put aside the ignorant ranting about the supposed deficiencies of other counties' health care systems. The truth is Americans would LOVE to have what Canadians and Europeans have: health care when you need it, without a bill, without fear of being bankrupted because you got sick, without worrying that you'll lose your health care when you lose your job. What kind of a stupid system ties health care into employment? For some honest information on universal, government-funded health care, go to http://www.pnhp.org/ -- this is the website of Physicians for a National Health Program. A majority of doctors now support government-funded health care for all.

Posted by: Theresa | Jan 5, 2009 4:23:52 PM

For-profit health insurance are an amoral, parasitic cancer on the United States. For-profit insurance companies typically have administrative overhead costs in the 30-35% range vs Medicare and other non-profit government programs which typically have around 3% administrative costs. This means that about 1/3 of ALL the money paid to private insurers is used by highly trained private insurance employees to deny or reject your medical claims or to enrich insurance company executives and their lavish lifestyles. Just say NO to private insurance and YES to non-profit universal health care.

Posted by: bg | Jan 8, 2009 2:06:25 PM

As it stands, government policies have allowed private insurers to take obscene profits. For example, it is allowable under law, for a person to have two health care plans and to pay two premiums but the insurance companies (hiding under a "coordination of benefits" clause) get a 100% profit on the second premiums because the secondary insurance does not have to pay anything if the first plan pays it's full allowable amount under contract. In other words, a person gets to pay twice and only get one benefit. Our government agrees that this is fair. Now, if it's a dental plan and you have two policies, you can get up to 100% of your dental bill paid for because the law allows the plans to coordinate to pay up to 100% of the allowed amount. So, my question is this, is that same government which absolutely cannot fix the existing unfairness in the system create a whole new system which will be good and fair and reasonably cost efficient? If you believe the answer is yes, you are a fool.

Posted by: linda | May 29, 2009 4:42:05 PM

I think she did the right thing by speaking her mind.

Posted by: Acai | Aug 11, 2009 12:35:11 PM

onsider that health catastrophies are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy declkarations. In those everyone involved loses out financially. The only system for our nation is the only one that puts people's health first - not the bottom line and huge executive salaries: Single Payer Universal Healthcare.

Posted by: Teeth Whitening | Aug 31, 2009 6:50:46 AM

my question is this, is that same government which absolutely cannot fix the existing unfairness in the system create a whole new system which will be good and fair and reasonably cost efficient? If you believe the answer is yes, you are a fool.

Posted by: Colon | Nov 11, 2009 8:51:54 AM

This means that about 1/3 of ALL the money paid to private insurers is used by highly trained private insurance employees to deny or reject your medical claims or to enrich insurance company executives and their lavish lifestyles. Just say NO to private insurance and YES to non-profit universal health care.

Posted by: Acai | Nov 11, 2009 8:52:42 AM

Post a comment