There is a lot of local action going on with health care advocacy, as this Montanan press release attests.
FOLLOWING RANCOR AMONG THE RANKS,
BAUCUS ASSURES MONTANA CONSTITUENTS:
“I WANT A PUBLIC OPTION TOO”U.S. Senator Max Baucus has finally broken his silence regarding his personal position on including a public option in health care reform legislation. Last Monday night (8/17), in an unprecedented conference call to Montana Democratic central committee chairs, the powerful leader of the Senate Finance Committee told his strongest supporters that he supported a public option. While discussing the obstacles to getting a public option through the Senate, he assured his forty listeners, “I want a public option too!”
The conference call was groundbreaking in that none of the recipients could ever remember this kind of call ever happening before. The teleconference was set up seemingly in reaction to rising discontent among the local Democratic leaders with the Senator’s failure to take a clear position on the issue.
The discussion, which became contentious and rancorous at times, also touched upon the wisdom of creating insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a public option.
When several of the county chairs objected, commenting that they did not trust the health insurance companies to police themselves and limit their outrageous corporate profits, Baucus commented, “Neither do I.”
In the aftermath of the teleconference, a coalition of eighteen Montana counties in the Senator’s home state decided to move forward with their plan to issue a Unified Statement accompanied by a joint press release. The statement sends a loud and clear message to their Senator: Any health care reform package coming out of his Senate Finance Committee must contain, at a minimum, a provision for a strong public option.
The action is a show of unity not previously seen in Montana political history…
You can read the rest of the press release here. Many groups are coming together on the Left to see if we can produce one single avenue for the successful passage of a health care reform bill. Having, hopefully, blocked the possibility of passing a bill without a public option in the House with the Standing Up for the Public Option Campaign (which has raised about $400,000 for progressive candidates to date), our next goal is to lock down 50 Democratic senators with the same pledge. We need five of the following fifteen Senate Democratic caucus members to commit to passing a public option.
Mark Begich of Alaska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bill Nelson of Florida, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana, Jon Tester of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Warner of Virginia, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Among Republicans, only Olympia Snowe of Maine looks like she might be helpful, although Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Susan Collins of Maine are worth talking to. With 50 votes locked down, the administration will have the votes to pass a public option through the budget reconciliation process. And, with the House refusing to pass anything that lacks a public option, that will be the only way the administration can succeed.
Tomorrow I will have some action items to help you do your part in this effort. We’ll also be discussing the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report on the treatment of detainees, which is scheduled for release mañana.
Booman, this is priceless.
Thank you thank you, thank you.
Do a little frog dance.
Just so we don’t get over-optimistic (and there are real grounds for optimism), note that Montana has 56 counties. Yes, there are some that have no Democratic Party organization at all. And some might have a multi-county Democratic organization. So it is not really clear from this how far this coalition reaches.
looking forward to the action itmes (i will, be calling you later). Don’t try to get Shitbag, I mean Lieberman on board, he’s already signaled where he is:
love the creative excuses. heard one on npr yesterday from some wsj writer (didn’t get the name, trying to get unlost in Toledo, OH) who said nothing against public option per se, but dialog is becoming rancorous so better to drop it iirc.
Exactly. Where he is is with Hadassah’s employer, the drug lobbyists.
Reckon what happens when that gets known.
With all of this effort to get a “public option,” can we add one more adjective — AFFORDABLE — and emphasize the word, “option,” as in, no one will be forced to buy what could turn into a bogus windfall for the insurance industry? I’m still afraid this whole process is going to end up screwing me personally.
Out of curiousity the other night, Hubby got an online quote from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the dominant provider in our state. Based only on our age (61) and without knowing any of our pre-existing conditions (serious), they wanted $1300 per month. Plus co-pays. Plus a $2500 annual deductible. That would add up to about 30% of our household income. I’d been thinking adding insurance to our budget might mean giving up our cable/internet connection but at that rate we’d have to give up FOOD.
So now I’ve entered a paranoid state: Suppose insurance becomes mandatory, they don’t cap the cost of it, we can’t afford it and basically become outlaws. Does that mean I wouldn’t be able to get my life-sustaining medication from a pharmacy without showing an insurance card? Will my desire for a nationalized health care system be perverted by Congress into a situation that kills me?
My question: what if the majority are suddenly ‘outlaws’, due to the fact that an industry based on the rationing of services is basically unsustainable?
If a growing number of us simply can’t afford insurance, I haven’t the slightest doubt that medications will be made available if they can be paid for in any way. Profit first, y’know.
I also haven’t the slightest doubt that many of us will literally be sacrificied to the beast before rational change occurs. Frankly, I expect to be one of those & therefore do my best to remain reasonably healthy.
This is probably the most basic action we can take for our own well-being: figure out what we can do for ourselves in terms of mitigating damage to our health & then do it.
This has nothing to do with either a non-humane, profit driven industry or self-interested pols with federally assured health care.
Let’s be clear what is going on in Congress.
First of all, the public option is not what is creating individual mandates; under the rumors from the Baucus smoke-filled room, they will ask for individual mandates regardless of anything else, in order to get universal coverage.
Second, subsidies are independent of the public option in some versions of the bill and part of it in others.
Third, the key element for most Congresspersons is the exchange in which you can comparison shop among plans, lots of plans from different companies; this is in fact what Congresspersons have now. What they don’t tell you how much members of Congress get subsidized by our tax money in these all-private plans.
Fourth, the public option will be a plan in the exchanges competing for folks just like any of the private plans. The difference is that the public option will not make a profit, it will develop its own schedule of benefits and either negotiate prices with providers (Blue Dog version) or set prices at Medicare plus 30% (progressives version) in order to benchmark the payment made by private insurance companies. If the private companies are too far away from the public plan, folks will move to the public plan. If the private companies can compete, folks will stay with whatever plan they want.
Fifth, there is a “firewall” to prevent folks from all at once rushing into the public plan, making it de facto single payer. It is based on whether you have an employer plan and how much of your income you are paying in premiums for your employer-based plan. But employers can choose the public option and move all of their employees to it without the firewall.
Sixth, employers have a mandate to either have their own plans or pay a payroll tax plus $750 if they do not have a plan. Those funds go to underwrite the subsidies to the public plan.
Finally, a couple of the bills limited all plans to the amount they can demand from folks as co-pays and deductibles. The Baucus bill is reported to be 35%, which is way to much to dump on folks. Other bills are much lower. This is something that we should watch carefully as this is what the plan does not pay in claims but forces into out-of-pocket costs.