Public plan off the table????

by: Lonegunman

Tue May 12, 2009 at 15:21:28 PM EDT

Dear Sen.Byrd,
Could we,this time,not let the promise of reform and increased competition turn into just another occasion for another segment of corporate America to reduce services and raise prices?

 Today, we all pay more,one way or another, because doctors and hospitals must cover the costs of those people without insurance.  Folks without insurance usually put off getting preventive care or early treatment for an illness. They get sicker and are harder to treat, and we all end up paying more. This is a terrible cycle we have to break, which is why we need meaningful reform.And even if you are lucky enough to have some sort of coverage,how many billing clerks do doctors have to hire just to duel with the claims clerks whose job it is to deny your treatment,another reason we need reform.

But the answer isn't leaving my insurance choice solely to the giant insurance companies. That's just a recipe to increase the insurance industry's profits, and put more paper-pushers between me and my doctor.

Even if the insurance industry agrees to stop excluding people with pre-existing conditions, charging women more than men, or sticking the seriously ill with exorbitant rates, these companies will always be in the business of making a profit by finding the best "risks."

The companies likely will still charge higher rates for getting older, or charge more depending on where a person lives. Middle class people who don't qualify for subsidies could be particularly hard hit as they get older, and ultimately be priced out of the insurance market.  We risk winding up back where we started  with high rates of uninsured and costs shifted to everyone else.  

 We need a real, meaningful solution. In addition to employer-based and insurance industry offerings, Americans need the choice of a publicly run insurance plan. All insurers, including the public plan entities offering coverage, would have to compete for customers, state clearly what they cover and what they charge, and play by the same rules and laws, so no one has an advantage. These rules would crack down on waste, fraud and abuse. For those who couldn't afford the full cost of insurance, subsidies would be available to help them pay the premiums for either a private or publicly run plan.

  Because the public plan wouldn't need to spend billions on advertising,marketing,and administration it could relieve employers of an increasingly untennable burden,and pressure private insurers to lower their costs. And private insurance would pressure the public plan to be more resourceful and responsive. We'd see vigorous competition, with better prices and better quality and service.

   I hope we get a better result from this round of "reform" legislation than we got when we de-regulated the telecoms and called it reform in 1996.How much did YOUR cable,telephone,and internet bills go up after that? And did the deregulation of the airlines bring the increased competition and lower prices that were promised?
  On a side note,does anyone know why Jay hasn't cast a vote for a while?Maybe he is completely absorbed by the sections of the healthcare bill Baucus asked him to take charge of:Medicaid Expansion,Quality Improvements......

 After the healthcare rountable and before any witnesses were heard from,the Chairman of the Finance Committee declared that single-payer was "off the table",and in fact no supporters of that solution were or have been on the witness lists.Hence the arrests of the Drs.and lawyers who rose to speak from the audience.Baucus'response:"We need more police."
 Seems that in addition to healthcare reform debate we are going to have to revisit campaign finance reform,and Obama's lobbying reform has had little effect on who gets heard and who writes the laws and regulations.