Key leaders in Washington are now saying that any health care reform will—and must—include a public health insurance option.1,2
The big challenge now? Opponents of reform are trotting out weak half-measures and calling them “public plans,”3 with the goal of leaving us with a public health insurance option in name only. The latest is a proposal for “co-ops”—small, regional insurers that would be too weak to bring costs down or compete with existing private insurance.4
We have to push back right away and with a clear message: Americans demand a strong public health insurance option, one that is available to everyone, national in scope with real bargaining clout, ready to go on day one, and truly public.
Can you write a letter to the editor about how important it is to include a strong public health insurance option in reform this year? Our tool makes writing a letter really simple. You can send the letter right from our website—it only takes a few minutes:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51500&id=16403-11381997-MS4Ur_x&t=3
If you’ve never written a letter to the editor before, now is the time to send your first. The letters page is one of the most widely read—and most important—in local newspapers. Members of Congress and their staffs read it to understand how their constituents are feeling. And the media read it as feedback on their coverage.
Here are a few key points for your letter on what a strong public health insurance option should look like:
* Available to all of us: A strong public health insurance option should be available to anyone who chooses to participate. If you like your current plan, you can keep it; if you want to participate in the public health insurance plan, you can choose to do so.
* A national plan with real bargaining clout: In order to truly control costs and compete with private health insurance plans, a strong public health insurance option must be available nationwide.
* Ready on day one: Every day we wait on real reform, health care costs continue to rise. A strong public health insurance option right out of the gate is key to building a competitive program that will help control costs.
* A truly public plan: To ensure it’s held to the highest standards of accountability, a public health insurance option must be truly publicly run—accountable and transparent to Congress and to voters.
A robust public health insurance option is the linchpin of real reform that will help bring costs down and provide coverage for all Americans. If thousands of us write to our local papers, we can make sure our representatives in Washington understand how crucial it is to voters like us. Please click here to get started:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51500&id=16403-11381997-MS4Ur_x&t=4
Sources:
1. “Pelosi: Health Care Reform Can’t Pass Without Public Option,” The Huffington Post, June 11, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51502&id=16403-11381997-MS4Ur_x&t=5
2. “CONFIRMED: Kennedy Bill Will Have Public Health Insurance Option,” Health Care for America Now, June 9, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51503&id=16403-11381997-MS4Ur_x&t=7
3. “Co-op compromise gives White House a health option,” The Associated Press, June 14, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51504&id=16403-11381997-MS4Ur_x&t=8
4.”A Co-Op for the Public Option? Let’s Talk Principles,” The Now! Blog, June 12, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51498&id=16403-11381997-MS4Ur_x&t=9
[…] Original post by bchboy1 […]
[…] Alan Berube, co-author of the report, in an interview with the Huffington Post Write to your Editor About Heathcare Reform. – rickywood.wordpress.com 06/18/2009 Key leaders in Washington are now saying that any health care […]
I will write a letter to the editor. Thank you for the important information.
I sit on the board with Utah association of Health underwriters and http://www.BenefitsManager.net as well as http://www.HealthInsuranceSource.net for health insurance reform. Several interesting changes took place with H.B. 188 passage earlier this year that seems all too familiar on the federal level. The spirit of the bill allows private market place remedies. It essentially guarantees insurance providers a “no loss” or “no gain” over competing carriers in the insurance exchange portal which is http://www.UtahInsuranceExchange.info. On the surface it seems not to be attractive to participating carriers (voluntary at this point). But you have to understand the carriers’ goal is to cover their administration fees. That can be accomplished now. The other half of the equation is providers and their billing practices that need to be reformed. That is on the agenda. Keep an eye on Utah because the national health care debate seems much the same ground we have already covered.
In http://www.UtahInsuranceExchange.info which is the beginning of a state sponsored program addresses issues on a local state level that the federal level might look at. Coming from an underwriting background I know where the dime falls. I am of the opinion that large waste occurs from providers billing for procedures that developed “no outcome”. Insurance carriers are not the only bad guys on the block. In most of our purchasing decisions….don’t we pay ONLY when we know that we will get a desired outcome? Why is it if you ask the doctor how much a particular test or procedure is he doesn’t know? Shouldn’t providers be held to a transparent cost standard?
You must be in the health care business from some interaction point to make statements of fact in the face of historical changes. When you are in the system from any touch point (insurance, provider, hospital, Medicare or patient) you get the “real issues” because of real time experience.
I often quote the Switzerland health care system as an example of tough questions that we will have to face at some point down the time line. Did you know that premature babies are not resuscitate upon birth if they cannot draw breath? Did you also know that is the same with “senior care” experiencing system failure or failures? They don’t extend life of a senior with multiple failures like intubation as example. Anyone in the business of paying claims knows that the single most expensive bills in what we call “shock loss” is within NICU for newborns and seniors in acute / intensive care / hospital.
The Swiss apparently made decisions made based upon cost vs. quality outcome. Are we as a nation prepared to make that type of decision or to define when to incubate, resuscitate a newborn or a senior? To define the conditions and rules of practice? With a litigious society I think not. This is why we need tort reform. Without tort reform medical provider costs will never drop. Liability costs with medical providers are nearly half of operating expenses. With health insurance carriers it translates to about 10% of every premium dollar collected.
I don’t think we are hearing about tort reform because most of the house and senate on the federal level are lawyers and have practicing law firm interests / ownership. In the healthcare system there is no total innocence. Insurance executives with bonuses, doctors overbilling, hospitals overbilling because the street gang thug got dropped at their door with no insurance. The lawyers are there to stir the pot and promise lavish fortune at the end of the PERCEIVED misery chain. Am I saying we don’t need them? No, but I am saying there is clear and documented abuse of the legal system that awards outlandish claims in the millions for a $20,000 mistake. Ambulance chasers being the most abusive. What about those that educate their clients on defraud and then use the legal system to pirate insurers?
health insurance should only be taken from reputable companies, you really don’t want to get it from fly-by-night companies ,-;