by Deb Cupples | Say what you will about Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and his questionable ties to the financial industry. At this point, Sen. Dodd seems to be on the right side of the health care reform issue -- as he was on the Telecom Amnesty issue.
Two days ago, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Ted Kennedy sent a letter to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which 1) states that a recent health-care reform bill would not cost as much as previously thought, and 2) outlines a public-insurance option.
Apparently, the Congressional Budget Office has found that the cost of implementing the new bill would be $611 billion over 10 years. I'm not sure what the original estimate was, but it reportedly was significantly higher.
That $611 billion is about 18% less than the $750 billion that our politicians (at the urging of George Bush and Henry Paulson) hurriedly funneled to Wall Street execs who had driven their companies -- and our nation's economy -- into a ditch year.
Our nation's annual budget is about $2.5 trillion each year; while, healthcare reforms are expected to cost only about $60 billion each year (less than 3% of our nation's annual budget).
To give you an idea of how small $60 billion is, it is about $6 billion less than than the State of Florida's 2008-09 budget.
Even better than the lower-than-expected costs, Sens. Dodd and Kennedy gave us some broad strokes on the public insurance option:
- Our public option will be a national plan, available in each state and territory and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will negotiate rates and premiums.
- Like private insurance plans, it will be available through the Health Insurance Gateway. Enrollees will be entitled to the same tax credits as those enrolled in the private plans available through the Gateway.
- And, of course, participation in the public option will be just that – an option for American consumers who will be able to decide what plan is best for their families.
"For the 47 million Americans currently living without health insurance, a public option will represent an opportunity to access quality, affordable care. For those who have insurance but still struggle to get the care they and their families need, the healthy competition provided by our proposal will offer a wider variety of options while keeping costs down.
"And for the many Americans who have good coverage, nothing will change." (letter)
If that’s not a win-win (win) situation, I don’t know what is. Yet, for reasons beyond this ordinary mortal's grasp, people from the insurance and medical-industry lobbies are up in arms -- screaming against the mere offering of a public option.
The American Medical Association, for example, wants "private markets" to take care of insurance. The AMA's spokespeople don't actually explain why or how that option would be better -- which is odd, given that the so-called "private markets" have controlled health care for a few decades now, with one result being that 47+ million Americans lack health care coverage.
Not all doctors agree with the AMA, incidentally. In fact, 14,000 doctors from a group called Physicians for a National Health Program would like to see some sort of public health option, having found that it would drastically reduce our nation's healthcare costs.
Offering a public option for health insurance would stimulate competition: isn't that what so-called "private markets" are supposed to do?
Offering a public option would truly give us consumers a choice: isn't that what so-called "private markets" are supposed to do?
Equally important, ensuring that more Americans have health care coverage would reduce the number of people who show up at emergency rooms to treat the flu -- which would, in turn, reduce the amount of money that we insured folks pay in order to cover those who don't have insurance.
Is it any wonder that this ordinary mortal simply does not understand why the medical-industrial complex's is griping?
Memeorandum has commentary.
Related Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Cash-Conscious Medical Group Opposes Single-Payer Health Coverage
* Death by Hospital (infection)
* Contractor Fraud: Driving Up Healthcare Costs?
* Pharma-Paid Doctors Wrote Risky Scrips for Kids
* Insurance Companies Get Away with Over-billing Medicare
* Drug Companies Scammed Taxpayers, Cancer Patients, Others
* FDA's Latest Pharma-Friendly Sins
*
Are you kidding? It was Barney Frank and Dodd that forced banks to give low-income mortgages to people that had NO right to own a home because they couldn't afford it! That's what threw the market and our economy in the dumpster. Don't dare blame it on Bush.
Posted by: Casca | July 06, 2009 at 03:39 PM