By Will Parry
Two liberal senators have called for “full debate” on whether the government should create a health plan to compete with private insurance companies.
Senators Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Chuck Schumer of New York are openly challenging the bill being produced by the Senate Finance Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Max Baucus of Montana.
Baucus is proposing an ill-defined system of non-profit cooperatives as an alternative to a public Medicare-like plan run by the government.
Schumer pointed out that in 40 states more than half the market share is held by just two insurance companies. Anything less than a strong public option would lack the economic muscle to challenge such powerful, entrenched insurance oligopolies, he said.
“The lack of accountability and the unfair practices of insurance companies are clear indications that health care reform needs a public insurance option – to break insurance company control of the market, create real competition and give millions of people real choices,” Schumer said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is working to mesh two reform bills produced by separate Senate committees. The Senate Finance Committee bill opts for the cooperatives as a solution; the bill produced by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee would establish a strong public plan.
To create a single bill will almost certainly require a compromise between the two positions. The compromise that’s getting the most attention would be the enactment of a “trigger” provision that would allow insurance companies a window of opportunity to meet standards of accountability and fairness. If the industry failed to measure up, a public option would be triggered.
Meanwhile in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has taken a strong stand on the issue.
“No bill can pass the House of Representatives without a public option in it,” she said. “The status quo cannot continue. The system is unsustainable in terms of the escalating costs…not only of health care, but also health insurance.”
Pelosi is working to develop a single consensus House bill that would meld versions produced this summer by three House committees. All three bills include the public option.
Meanwhile the Republicans in both houses have condemned all the pending reform bills while offering no constructive alternatives. Baucus’ efforts at winning Republican support for the Finance Committee bill were fruitless despite weeks of meetings seeking common ground.
Invisible but omnipresent throughout the debates are the powerful lobbies for the health insurance and drug companies. The Committee for a Responsible Congress reports that these companies spent $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009 alone.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) deployed 136 lobbyists and led the pack in spending. Dozens of former government insiders have been employed as lobbyists by PhRMA, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association, The Washington Post reports.
“The aim of the lobbying blitz is simple,” said the Post, “to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million Americans as new customers.”
Major players such as PhRMA and America’s Health Insurance Plans, playing the public relations game, have made vague commitments to curb the rise in costs. But they all oppose the one instrument that could truly keep costs in check: The establishment of a public option to challenge the untrammeled power of the medical-industrial complex.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hope folks will comment.
ReplyDeleteI remain convinced that a single payer system is the only viable solution to providing all Americans affordable, comprehensive, quality healthcare.
ReplyDeleteCongress continues to cowtow to the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies which are paying megabucks to further water down this "compromise" legislation.
That being said, we cannot sit silently while they do this. If we do then our elected officials will think that we do not care what they do.
A strong public option may be a way to hold those corporations accountable in the short term while we work our way toward a realistic system such as all of the other developed countries have had for a long time. We have a mechanism already setup to implement a public option. It is called Medicare.
One other thing is essential IMO which is to pass the amendment which would allow states to implement their own single payer system such as was done in Canada decades ago. States have a variety of examples to draw from. Many of these are outlined in T.R. Reid's book, "The Healing of America" A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care".