White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."

Obama's top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

On Saturday, Obama himself appeared to hedge his bets.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate's budget committee, has pushed the co-op alternative. He called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."

As proposed by Conrad, the co-ops would receive federal startup money, but then would operate independently of the government. They would have to maintain the same financial reserves that private companies are required to keep to handle unexpectedly high claims.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.

Republicans say a public option would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan.

"We'll have the same number of people uninsured," she said. "If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured."

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said the Democrats' option would force individuals from their private plans to a government-run plan, a claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office supports.

"There is a way to get folks insured without having the government option," he said.

Obama, writing an opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.

"In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing."

Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.

"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said.

Sebelius said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill.

"We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table," she said.

Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Johnson and Price spoke with "State of the Union." Hatch was interviewed on "This Week."

If we simply socialized health insurance, that would fix a lot of things.

If we simply socialized health insurance, that would fix a lot of things.


Hmmmm....


Social Security - socialized - runs at a deficit
Medicare - socialized - runs at a deficit
Weapons programs - understandably socialized - routinely overbudget and under capability
Above situations regardless of which party is in the White House


Yep... socializing is the way to go.

Hmmmm....


Social Security - socialized - runs at a deficit
Medicare - socialized - runs at a deficit
Weapons programs - understandably socialized - routinely overbudget and under capability
Above situations regardless of which party is in the White House


Yep... socializing is the way to go.

er.. how could social security & medicare not run at a deficit?  Irrespective of who's running them.

er.. how could social security & medicare not run at a deficit?  Irrespective of who's running them.


Precisely.  Nobodyt in government has the 'nards to say "no" and so these programs run at a deficit (specifically, a "Net Present Value" deficit).

So all this talk about "the health care reform will not add to the deficit" has a poor precedent.

As it is, we have yet to see an itemized plan on how the various proposals will save money, and this is as reported by the General Accounting Office.

If somebody would provide an itemized plan of the dolalr flows, a more logical discussion, pro and con, could be held.  But so far all we have is "trust me".  And people are not buying it...

Hmmmm....


Social Security - socialized - runs at a deficit
Medicare - socialized - runs at a deficit
Weapons programs - understandably socialized - routinely overbudget and under capability
Above situations regardless of which party is in the White House


Yep... socializing is the way to go.


I'd rather run at a public debt than have millions of the public in personal debt due to health problems.

I'd rather run at a public debt than have millions of the public in personal debt due to health problems.


Why should an individual not assume liability for health care services provided for their benefit?

But this begs the real question.  The President has stated that "we will not implement a program that increases the deficit" and that "the program will serve to reduce healthcare costs".  Fair enough, except we have not seen any concrete plan as to how such result would be obtained.  It has certainly not been obtained in any other country that socialized medicine.

I mean, show me the numbers.  If there is a concrete program that shows cause-and-effect is to reduce health care spending, I would give it serious consideration.  Instead, what we have here is proclamation of huge benefits without any outline of specifics.

The "it will not increase the deficit" statement is double talk and everybody knows it.

Why should an individual not assume liability for health care services provided for their benefit?

Because under the current system, you already assume the debt of those who receive services but don't pay.  The only difference with socialization is that it handles unexpected costs better than our current system.

But this begs the real question.  The President has stated that "we will not implement a program that increases the deficit" and that "the program will serve to reduce healthcare costs".  Fair enough, except we have not seen any concrete plan as to how such result would be obtained.  It has certainly not been obtained in any other country that socialized medicine.

The costs he's mostly referring to are the costs of treatment itself.  It's no big secret that most NHS's do run deficits.  However, it's also no big secret that we pay far more for healthcare than anyone else.  The main reasons for this are: 1)lawsuits, 2)corporate bureaucracies, 3)pharmaceutical lobbyism, and 4)local oligopolies.

What a socialized system would do to reduce costs is: 1)maintain negotiations between pharmaceutical companies & the government, 2)create a continual cash flow for the medical system that will function like a very large "insurance pool" via taxes (and which handles unexpected costs far better than the private method of raising prices to cover them), and 3)streamline medical bureaucracy into one governmental authority structure (which, as all other NHS's have shown to be true, is considerably more efficient than having a myriad of private bureaucracies).

A 4th possibility is implementing tort reform, which is very likely considering that both Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats agree with this idea.

I mean, show me the numbers.  If there is a concrete program that shows cause-and-effect is to reduce health care spending, I would give it serious consideration.  Instead, what we have here is proclamation of huge benefits without any outline of specifics.

Compare our costs per patient vs. those of any socialized system.

The "it will not increase the deficit" statement is double talk and everybody knows it.


I would agree that it will have to increase the deficit unless we cut spending in other areas.

If they drop the public option, color me independent.  I will not register as a Democrat again and I will not vote for Obama in 2012. 

I didn't vote for Clinton in '96 on account of him being Republican Lite, but I did not withdraw from the Democratic Party.  Not this time, baby.  I'm gone.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/countdown.gif

If they drop the public option, color me independent.  I will not register as a Democrat again and I will not vote for Obama in 2012. 

I didn't vote for Clinton in '96 on account of him being Republican Lite, but I did not withdraw from the Democratic Party.  Not this time, baby.  I'm gone.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/countdown.gif


I understand your feelings on this.  I've always been an Independent myself.

Still, these co-ops sound better than doing nothing.

F**K THE CAPITALIST PIGGIES! 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink2.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink.gif

The have conducted capitalism to it's great crescendo of abject failure and there turn is over. 

Now, comrades, the time has come for us to dispossess the corporations!

Bye-bye Piggies!

F**K THE CAPITALIST PIGGIES!  
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink2.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/oink.gif

The have conducted capitalism to it's great crescendo of abject failure and there turn is over.  

Now, comrades, the time has come for us to dispossess the corporations!

Bye-bye Piggies!


...or just move to Canada.  When 60 Democratic Senators, 256 Democratic Representatives, and a Democratic president can't pass a NHS, it's not going to happen until things get really bad.  I'd rather not live here once it gets to that point.

So yeah, my plans for moving to Toronto may need to be expedited somewhat at this point.  I can't blame you if you'd like to follow.

The costs he's mostly referring to are the costs of treatment itself.  It's no big secret that most NHS's do run deficits.  However, it's also no big secret that we pay far more for healthcare than anyone else.  The main reasons for this are: 1)lawsuits, 2)corporate bureaucracies, 3)pharmaceutical lobbyism, and 4)local oligopolies.

What a socialized system would do to reduce costs is: 1)maintain negotiations between pharmaceutical companies & the government, 2)create a continual cash flow for the medical system that will function like a very large "insurance pool" via taxes (and which handles unexpected costs far better than the private method of raising prices to cover them), and 3)streamline medical bureaucracy into one governmental authority structure (which, as all other NHS's have shown to be true, is considerably more efficient than having a myriad of private bureaucracies).

I have not heard WORD ONE from the proponents of the various programs that Tort Reform (ie, malpractice lawsuit limitation) will be part of the proposal. And I suspect we will not, because the proponents of this program do not have the 'nards to pass such anti-lawyer legislation.

Pharmaceutical companies will still have their new medicines protected by Patents for (I think it is 17) years when they are "new", and thus the government will have little bargaining power unless (a) A better medicine exists or (b) The government decides to not purchase the medicine altogether, which means that effective cures will be barred from the market.  After the patents have expired, the buying power already exists for generic drugs, as evidenced by the $4 drug programs at places like Wal Mart and Giant Iggle.

I agree that a socialized system will provide a "continuous cash flow" to the medical community, there is no doubt about that whatsoever.

Now as I understand things, the drug companies are actually SUPPORTING the various proposals.  Do you really think that they would be aggressively supporting the proposals if the net result were to take large sums of money out of drug company coffers?  The executives at the drug companies get all tingly in the giblets when they hear about this legislation.

Precisely.  Nobodyt in government has the 'nards to say "no" and so these programs run at a deficit (specifically, a "Net Present Value" deficit).

So all this talk about "the health care reform will not add to the deficit" has a poor precedent.
I still don't get how *any* health care setup won't run at a deficit, in that they all require money to come in to pay for services being rendered.  Either these services are paid for centrally, in which case you see one huge number that goes out of the central government budget; or they're paid for in full at the point of need, in which case you see only those people who can afford it getting treatment; or you have a private insurance scheme which has to provide for profits as well as treatment costs.  If you want them to run at a profit, it simply means more money from the people paying for it all.

All of these require money to pay for treatment, and the fully nationalized version costs less than the others.  The NHS here in the UK was the most efficient health provider in the world, until Maggie introduced her competition rules.  Even so, it costs half the amount to run per capita compared to the insurance-based system in the US, and provides a service to everyone rather than only those who can afford it.  So far all the serious complaints about the NHS I've heard being reported over on that side of the channel have been complete fabrications, but given that's the way most campaigning seems to go over there (whoever tells the most egregious lies, wins), I'm not surprised.

It was basically a dead deal in the first place.

First-If it passed, you may have to be on a waiting list...and that list may be real long.
Second-Many countries are now abandoning it because it isn't working like it should.
Third-There are many Extremists who would want Obama's head if it passed.

If they want to socialize (or nationalize) something...have it be Public Transportation!

It was basically a dead deal in the first place.

First-If it passed, you may have to be on a waiting list...and that list may be real long.
Second-Many countries are now abandoning it because it isn't working like it should.
Third-There are many Extremists who would want Obama's head if it passed.

If they want to socialize (or nationalize) something...have it be Public Transportation!


That's already pretty much been done, and those programs pretty much all run with deficits.

I have not heard WORD ONE from the proponents of the various programs that Tort Reform (ie, malpractice lawsuit limitation) will be part of the proposal. And I suspect we will not, because the proponents of this program do not have the 'nards to pass such anti-lawyer legislation.

Pharmaceutical companies will still have their new medicines protected by Patents for (I think it is 17) years when they are "new", and thus the government will have little bargaining power unless (a) A better medicine exists or (b) The government decides to not purchase the medicine altogether, which means that effective cures will be barred from the market.  After the patents have expired, the buying power already exists for generic drugs, as evidenced by the $4 drug programs at places like Wal Mart and Giant Iggle.

You're ignoring how bargaining works between other governments like Canada and pharmaceutical companies for drugs still under patents.  We pay more for non-generic drugs than they do -- by a longshot.

Now as I understand things, the drug companies are actually SUPPORTING the various proposals.  Do you really think that they would be aggressively supporting the proposals if the net result were to take large sums of money out of drug company coffers?  The executives at the drug companies get all tingly in the giblets when they hear about this legislation.


Most drug companies spend more money fighting socialized medicine than supporting it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/pacrecips.php?cycle=2008&ind=H4300

If you look at that list, most of the Congress members there are against socialized medicine.  Now, it is true that the top recipient of funds, John Dingell, is in favor of socialized medicine, but look at the next 4 members listed.  Of the top 10 recipients, 7 are against it.  Of the top 25, 15 are against socialized medicine.

American run deficits?  I thought Cheney said deficits don't matter?
???

Anyway, I don't give a ferk if these government programs run deficits, I DO care about people getting the medical care they need.

I don't know much about how it works, but I think it's crazy why the majority of Americans don't want a government run healthcare system.

We have it in Canada and it benefits alot of people who wouldn't be able to afford hospital care otherwise.  We do pay for it out of our taxes, but we don't have to worry about paying hospital bills or doctors fees, and for this, is the main reason why I will never leave Canada.

I don't know much about how it works, but I think it's crazy why the majority of Americans don't want a government run healthcare system.

We have it in Canada and it benefits alot of people who wouldn't be able to afford hospital care otherwise.  We do pay for it out of our taxes, but we don't have to worry about paying hospital bills or doctors fees, and for this, is the main reason why I will never leave Canada.




The majority of Americans DO want a government-run healtcare system.  The corporate oligarchy says no.  That's that.  That's fascism. 

I don't know much about how it works, but I think it's crazy why the majority of Americans don't want a government run healthcare system.

We have it in Canada and it benefits alot of people who wouldn't be able to afford hospital care otherwise.  We do pay for it out of our taxes, but we don't have to worry about paying hospital bills or doctors fees, and for this, is the main reason why I will never leave Canada.




maybe this is because of people like a former coworker of mine.  He worked at a Canadian subsidiary and could not get thru a waiting list (after months) to get treated.

Finally we simply had him cross the border into the good old U S of A where he got treated pronto at iur expense.

maybe this is because of people like a former coworker of mine.  He worked at a Canadian subsidiary and could not get thru a waiting list (after months) to get treated.

Finally we simply had him cross the border into the good old U S of A where he got treated pronto at iur expense.


If you don't mind me asking, what was your coworkers ailment?

Do you mean the good ol US of A that sent my grandfather home with a $6000 hospital bill because he had to go in for an overnight stay due to heat exhaustion? Where up here in Canada that same exact service would have been provided to him for free?

I'll take our system over yours any day of the week.

What the U.S. does with health care is clearly a mess, a debacle, ineffective, and inefficient.  With a facet of modern human society as complex as the provision of medical care, you are going to have snags and problems with ANY system.  However, we are letting just a few bloated, rapacious corporations dictate the health and vital statistics of our country if we keep our current broken system.

I do notice that everybody who wants to keep the garbage the U.S. has right now seems to have a story about so-and-so they know who had to weight months and months for surgery in Canada.  However, these anecdotes do not impress me. 

This country has to learn how to manage public health and domestic security without bitching and finger-pointing at this politician and that politician.  New Orleans is STILL a cesspool four years after Katrina.  There is no excuse -- NO EXCUSE -- for that.  Katrina was a major natural disaster, but disasters -- both natural and man-made -- can be far, far worse.  We have to learn to do things because they are the right thing to do, not based on who deserves what. 

As the message the corporate media sent about Katrina was those people are ignorant welfare layabouts and deserve their punishments, so the message is that anybody who suffers from lack of medical care deserves to suffer because they are fat pigs who made bad decisions in life.  That is the christofascist ethos, and it must be wiped out of the American psyche if we are going to improve our lot.

::)

maybe this is because of people like a former coworker of mine.  He worked at a Canadian subsidiary and could not get thru a waiting list (after months) to get treated.

Finally we simply had him cross the border into the good old U S of A where he got treated pronto at iur expense.

Argument by anecdote doesn't work - there are plenty of examples of both ideal and horrific treatment with both socialized and insurance-based healthcare.  It means absolutely nothing in the context of the healthcare debate whether one person had good treatment in the US versus Canada or vice versa.

The problem is that in order to get a rational answer, people need to understand the statistics involved.. properly presented statistics are the only possible basis for a rational judgment.  Yet stats don't seem to have loomed large in the debate so far.. at least, not as far as I can see.

If you don't mind me asking, what was your coworkers ailment?



Severe headaches and persistent nausea.  I forget what type of specialist(s) he needed to see.  But he had to come across the river to Detroit to get diagnosed and treated, after waiting months to even get seen by a Dr up in Windsor.

The problem is that in order to get a rational answer, people need to understand the statistics involved.. properly presented statistics are the only possible basis for a rational judgment.  Yet stats don't seem to have loomed large in the debate so far.. at least, not as far as I can see.


I'll agree with you on that.

I have yet to see an itemized plan as to how health care costs will be reduced by the reforms proposed (whatever they are).  Right now all we have is a "trust me" argument, and that is not sufficient to effect a change.

If the reforms are so OBVIOUSLY superior to the status quo, then it should be quite easy to compile a fairly decent analysis of where the savings will come from.

I'll agree with you on that.

I have yet to see an itemized plan as to how health care costs will be reduced by the reforms proposed (whatever they are).  Right now all we have is a "trust me" argument, and that is not sufficient to effect a change.

If the reforms are so OBVIOUSLY superior to the status quo, then it should be quite easy to compile a fairly decent analysis of where the savings will come from.


Well, one of the most obvious savings involved is how much less we'd pay for drugs if the government got involved in negotiations with drug companies.

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8049145

Source for the graphs: http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles/Canadian-Foreign_Price_Trends_-_released_July_04_0638LHG-742006-1490.pdf

Democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid wants to go to the "nuclear vote" whic means 50 votes for a health care bill with the public option included in the bill. If the Democrats(i.e. liberals) do this they will severe consequences in the mid-term elections in 2010. The Democrats I don;t think currently can get this bill through the senate with a full 60 votes because moderate and conservative democrats will have no part of a bill with a public option in it.

The majority of Americans DO want a government-run healtcare system.  The corporate oligarchy says no.  That's that.  That's fascism. 
More people don't want the public option than actually want it and your telling me Americans want a government run health care system. Huh? We don;'t have enough doctors or overall medical staff in the US right now to serve all the US population currently.

More people don't want the public option than actually want it and your telling me Americans want a government run health care system. Huh? We don;'t have enough doctors or overall medical staff in the US right now to serve all the US population currently.




Source?



Cat

Severe headaches and persistent nausea.  


Sounds like the symptoms you get navigating the American insurance system!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sad4.gif

Source?



Cat





I ain't even sure what the heck he's talking about it!
:D

Source?



Cat





No source, just opinion, or right wing wishful thinking.