Take a look at this email taken directly from the “fair and balanced” news room of Fox News during the Health Care Reform fight and the public option battle specifically.  Media Matters  reports that it obtained the following email from a Faux Noise source:

1) Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.

2) When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so-called,” as in “the so-called public option.”

3) Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”

4) When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

As a pragmatist I understand that certain deals must be made to pass legislation.  What ticks me off is when people play myself and the American people for idiots.  Sen. Dick Durbin announced on Friday that the House reconciliation bill will not include the public option. Speaker Nancy Pelosi then comes out and says that the reconciliation will not include the public option because the Senate does not have the votes.  And the White House……”ominously” silent on this new development.  There is a political blame game going on for the benefit of the American people.  The problem is this is not a game.  People are dying due to lack of health insurance.  It seems as if each time the public option gets close to having the votes someone comes out, like Durbin/Pelosi/Rahm Emmanuel, and throws cold water on the idea by saying that the Senate does not have the votes.  In addition, the White House has not shown any public support for including the public option in the reconciliation fix.  The question is why?  Another question is why is the main stream media not asking this question?  The public option is more popular with the American people then any of the politicians in Washington including the President yet the White House and the Senate are determined not to have an up or down vote on it.  Why is that? 

We somewhat understand the impossible situation that Speaker Pelosi finds herself,  in that if she puts in the public option and Durbin does not whip the Senate votes then the House and the American people may pay a price by being stuck with the Senate version of the health care bill signed into law without the House fixes.  This would be great for the Senate because its the Senate bill that is now law and the House and the American people are left out in the cold.  So the position of the House is logical and understandable given the recent history of the Senate.

So that leaves the Senate and the White House as responsible for the lack of a public option in the Senate bill in the first instance and not being included in the reconciliation fix in the second.   The Senate cannot blame the lack of public option on the House and expect the American people to believe it when the Senate never included the public option in its bill in the first place.  The question is why is the Senate and the White House against the public option?  Is there a deal with the insurance industry that preceded this whole debate similar to the one with the pharmaceutical industry?  As I said at the top of this post, I’m a pragmatist.  However, I do not appreciate is being played.  Tell us the truth.  There is no other reason that the overwhelmingly popular public option is being excluded from the House reconciliation fix except that the fix is in with the insurance industry.  Think about it….a public option will result in more competition for insurance companies and lower premium prices for all Americans equaling less profits for Big Insurance.  As a matter of fact, the public option will likely reduce premium prices more than any other measure in the health care reform bill.  So what is the purpose of health care reform again…to prevent health care premium prices from increasing as much as fifty percent each year as has recently occurred in Detroit, Michigan.  Regardless of the fact that people cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions or be subjected to lifetime medical care caps,  if folks are charged exhorbitant prices for health insurance that the government pays if they cannot afford it only Big Insurance wins.  And that is the truth regardless of how may politicians deny it.  If we hear one more politician say that we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good I am going to scream.  A bill with a public option is not “perfect!”   It is the least that can been done to help reign in health insurance costs given that Big Insurance will receive 30 million new customers!!!!

After this protracted health care battle we do not believe that the Senate or the White House will broach the subject of health care again for quite some time.  So we would pretty much be stuck with whatever the final outcome of this bill turns out to be. 

Act now.  We need a public option in this bill to compete with private insurance companies.  Call these Senators and tell them to support a public option in the reconciliation fix. phone numbers and contact info

Sen. Max Baucus MT
Sen. Evan Bayh IN
Sen. Mark Begich AK
Sen. Robert Byrd WV
Sen. Thomas Carper DE
Sen. Kent Conrad ND
Sen. Kay Hagan NC
Sen. Tom Harkin IA
Sen. Herb Kohl WI
Sen. Mary Landrieu LA
Sen. Blanche Lincoln AR
Sen. Claire McCaskill MO
Sen. Ben Nelson NE
Sen. Mark Pryor AR
Sen. John Rockefeller WV
Sen. Jon Tester MT
Sen. Mark Warner VA
Sen. James Webb VA

UPDATE: 

We asked the question and TalkingPointsMemo,  a popular progressive site, also stepped up to ask the question (after we did btw) and dug up this New York Times article written in August 2009 discussing exactly what we thought but suspects a different third party player:

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

If this is true then pay 90 percent of private sector rates to hospitals or even private sector rates.  It will still cut out all the profit and administrative costs of Big Insurance thereby dramatically reducing premium rates for all Americans and providing competition to the health insurance industry.

The majority of Americans want a public option so why is the the Senate determined not to give the public what it wants?  Especially when it makes good fiscal sense, given the recent premium rate hikes of 39% CA and a proposed 54% in Michigan by Big Insurance, to do so?  Senators and House members should take note of Rep. Tom Perriello’s example.  Perriello is a Congressman in the very red fifth district in Virginia yet he voted his conscience when he voted in favor of including the public option in health care reform.  After doing so he stated that he is willing to lose an election in the name of  standing up for what he truly believes is best for his constituents and the nation.  The result?  At a time when many incumbents are retiring or are running a very weak reelection campaign Rep. Tom Perriello is tied or leading all the Republican candidates in his very red and conservative district.  As voters we want strong leaders who stand up for what they believe in and do not sway as a result of an election loss in a state thousands of miles away.  Voters do not vote for Democrats so that they will act like Republicans they vote for Republicans to be Republicans.  One Senator who should really take note of this is Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.  When Arkansians want a Republican senator they will not reelect a pseudo Republican senator.  Therefore, pandering to the right does nothing more than expose such Senators as weak and willing to compromise their principles if it means getting reelected.  Think about it.

We need an effective method of cost control in the health care reform bill and requiring an 85 percent medical loss ratio is not enough because Big Insurance will develop a new way of defining medical care.  In other words, the insurance industry will find a way around the regulations similar to the way the credit card industry is doing to circumvent credit card company regulations.  The only effective method of cost control for Big Insurance is to provide a public option to compete with it head to head.

The Senators below have signed a letter to Leader Harry Reid requesting a vote on the public option through reconciliation:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Diane Feinstein (D-CA); Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ); Bar;bara Mikulski (D-MD); Jack Reed (D-RI); Bernie Sanders (I-VT); Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH); Tom Udall (D-NM); Michael Bennet (D-CO); Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Al Franken (D-MN); Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY); John Kerry (D-MA); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Dick Durbin (D-IL); Patty Murray (D-WA); Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Mark Udall (D-CO); Bob Casey (D-PA); Ted Kaufman (D-DE); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Christopher Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Harry Reid(D- NV); Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT); Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND); Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI); Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)

The following Senators have not yet signed the letter….please call them and tell them to support the public option through reconciliation.  Senate phone numbers and contact info.

Sen. Daniel Akaka HI
Sen. Max Baucus MT
Sen. Evan Bayh IN
Sen. Mark Begich AK
Sen. Jeff Bingaman NM
Sen. Robert Byrd WV
Sen. Maria Cantwell WA
Sen. Ben Cardin MD (Supporter)
Sen. Thomas Carper DE
Sen. Robert Casey PA
Sen. Kent Conrad ND
Sen. Christopher Dodd CT
Sen. Byron Dorgan ND
Sen. Richard Durbin IL
Sen. Russell Feingold WI (Supporter)
Sen. Kay Hagan NC
Sen. Tom Harkin IA
Sen. Daniel Inouye HI
Sen. Tim Johnson SD
Sen. Ted Kaufman DE
Sen. Amy Klobuchar MN (Supporter)
Sen. Herb Kohl WI
Sen. Mary Landrieu LA
Sen. Carl Levin MI (Supporter)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln AR
Sen. Claire McCaskill MO
Sen. Robert Menendez NJ  
Sen. Patty Murray WA
Sen. Bill Nelson FL
Sen. Ben Nelson NE
Sen. Mark Pryor AR
Sen. Harry Reid NV
Sen. John Rockefeller WV
Sen. Arlen Specter PA
Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI
Sen. Jon Tester MT
Sen. Mark Udall CO
Sen. Mark Warner VA
Sen. James Webb VA
Sen. Ron Wyden OR

A recent poll conducted in several battleground states were freshman House members may be vulnerable in 2010 demonstrates that the consituents in such districts want more change.  Do you know what else they want??  A PUBLIC OPTION!!!!!!!  Are you listening House and Senate???  Research 2000 conducted telephone interviews with 2000  likely voters in swing districts in Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Ohio.  The result:  Democrats and Independents want a public option in this Health Care Reform bill.

Sen. Harry Reid confirms that the Senate reached a health care reform deal last night that is rumored to have nixed the public option and includes a buy-in to Medicare for individuals 55 to 65 and not-for-profit private insurance  plans that will be overseen by the Office of Personnel and Management.  The insurance industry is very happy….and it said as much:

With the Senate shifting sharply away from a “pure public option,” an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.

“We WIN,” the insider writes. “Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”

Okay, so the Senate has come up with a plan that foists the most expensive health care patients on to the public dole.  I am really surprised that the Big Insurance went along with the very idea of it receiving a mandate from Congress to accept obscene amounts of new premiums due to a taxpayer mandate that requires the healthiest and youngest health care consumers buy its insurance.  Congress is really teaching the insurance industry a lesson. (snark)  This of course translates to even more obscene profits because the younger the insured the healthier the insured typically so such health care consumers will in most instances not need health care to the extent that consumers over 55 will need health care services.  In other words, the insurance industry has succeeded in making the government do exactly what the government complains that the industry does (dropping policy holders who most threaten its profits) but do so legally.  Getting rid of the least profitable policyholders, seniors over 55, is change that Big Insurance can believe in.

Also, where is the competition for insurance companies? Where is the price containment?  What about all of those uninsured people under the age of 55?  Not-for-profit insurance plans like Blue Cross Blue Shield that are part of the problem?  Are those health consumers to be left to the mercy of the insurance companies similar to American consumrs being left to the mercy of the credit card industry?  We are very interested to find out exactly what percentage of the uninsured this bill with covered.  There are unconfirmed reports that expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older would only cover an additional three million people.  What about the other 42.7 million uninsured who are now mandated to buy high cost health insurance ?

The Senate health care reform bill has been widdled down so much in terms of making the insurance companies accountable and inserting competition into the marketplace that former governor of Vermont Howard Dean says that the bill is useless in terms of making insurance affordable for all Americans if it does not contain a public option.  According to Dean, and we agree, the Senate bill contains no reasonable cost containment mechanism for the insurance companies therefore permiting them to charge one customer 300 percent more than that same customer’s neighbor.  Without a robust public option the insurance industry can continue doing what it is doing but worse .  Need we forget about the credit card industry and how it responded to even th eslightest bit of regulation by engaging in unscrupulous and deceptive practices even more.

Senator Harry Reid has finally managed to get a consensus on a health care reform bill.  The newly proposed Senate bill costs a mere $849 billion ($51B less than President’s mandate of $900B), reduces the deficit by $127 billion in 10 years, covers 94 percent of Americans (31 million more Americans), includes a public option with a state opt out provision, and contains a much weaker Stupak (anti-abortion) amendment.   

New Stupak compromise is as follows:

The Senate version would require at least one plan within the health insurance exchange that the bill sets up to offer a plan that covers abortion and one that doesn’t. It would also authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to audit plans to make certain that abortion isn’t being paid for with federal dollars.

Read the health care bill (PDF) (Abortion amendment starts at 116, Community Health Insurance Option  (Public option)  and opt out provision begins on p. 182  (Sec, 1323)

In addition, according to a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press, 52 percent of Americans favor a public option while only 38 percent oppose a public plan.  The majority of Americans have spoken and delivered a mandate to Congress that the health care reform bill must include a public option.  Participants were also asked if they would favor the public option being available nationally or whether states should be able to opt out resulting in the following:

Poll participants were asked whether government insurance should be available to all, or whether state governments should be able to decide not to offer it. Seventy percent favored making it available nationally while 25 percent said state governments should be able to decide.

The bill obviously needs a bit more work when it comes to the opt out provision.

Look at me!  Look at me!! Sen. Joseph Lieberman in his never-ending quest to become relevant has again stabbed the Democrats in the back by vowing to filibuster any version of health care reform that contains a public option.  Will Democrats ever learn??  To provide context to Lieberman’s position it is important to point out that several of the largest insurance companies in the nation have their corporate headquarters in Lieberman’s state of Connecticut.  In addition, Lieberman has received more than $2.5 million dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries running his state.  The Connecticut senator has received $65, 200 from Aetna alone for just the 2010 election cycle.  Did we also mention that 68 percent of Connecticut residents favor a public option and only 20 percent oppose a public plan?  Did we further mention that one poll indicates that 73 percent of INDEPENDENTS in Connecticut favor a public option.  Therefore, Lieberman will do one of two things in his desperate bid for attention.  He is either going to stick it to his constituents and cater to his base-the insurance industry- thereby ruining any chance of reelection.  Or, he will require Reid et al to satisfy his temper tantrum and narcissism by giving him a little attention after which he will do what is expected of him because he owes it to Democrats.  After all they did save him from irrelevancy following his last magnificent betrayal that was the McCain campaign.

They all said that the public option is dead and buried.  Well it has recovered and been given a clean bill of health thanks to YOU.  Why it took Sen. Reid et all to see that a public option in the bill is the best way to go is beyond this writer.  For goodness sake, the majority of the American people want the public option, the public option brings down the cost of health care reform significantly according to the Congressional Budget Office, and it results in more Americans being covered.  Why is this so difficult???   Take a look at the comments from the misguided chattering class that includes several politicians:

Brad Blakeman:

The “public option” is dead, but birth has been given to the “co-op” by Senator Kent Conrad.

Cesar Conda:

The public option has flat-lined. As for the legislative outlook for health reform, the Senate will approve a bill without the public option. The current House version includes the public option, but I’m not so sure the Blue Dogs will want to walk the plank and vote on a provision that won’t become law.

Thomas J. Whalen:

The public option appears deader than the pennant chances of the Kansas City Royals. Nonprofit cooperatives will now take center stage in the health care debate and from the White House’s perspective, this may not be such a bad thing.

Sen. Kent Conrad:

In the Senate, the cooperative plan is the only one that has the prospect of getting 60 votes.

Conrad reverb:

“The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been,” he said. “So to continue to chase that rabbit I think is just a wasted effort.”

Conrad reverb reverb:

“It is very clear that in the United States Senate, the public option does not have the votes,” he said. “If we have to get to 60 votes, you cannot get there with public option. That’s why I was asked to come up with an alternative.”

Jane Hamsher:

Of course he’s not going to include a public option — as DC’s beltway class well knows, it’s been gone for a long time.

…

Rahm and the Baucus Caucus dealt the public option away months ago in order to keep stakeholders at the negotiating tables, and from filling the coffers of Republicans in 2010.

Newt Gingrich:

“I think the president has a real opportunity to fundamentally change the tone of his administration,” Gingrich tells NRO. But, he says, “I think it takes deeper change than simply yes or no on the public option. Frankly, if he does come out against a public option — given what the Left and the ACLU have said — it would be a very significant moment, and we should not understate how significant that would be.”

Nate Silver:

Is the public option really dead? Probably.

Perhaps the better question is whether the public option was ever really ‘alive’, meaning that it ever had enough votes to pass both the House and the Senate.

Karen Kerrigan:

It is dead. Never had a chance. Yet, debate over the public option will continue.

Steve Steckler:

Steve Steckler: The public option was like a cheap tattoo on the bride in an arranged marriage, betraying a questionable past (Medicare cost history) and an ominous future (budget-driven service constraints) for what was supposed to be love at first sight.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson:

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a parade of House and Senate Democrats should get academy awards for their play act on the public heath care option. It’s as dead as a doornail.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich:

“It’s my opinion that the blue dogs are doing exactly what the white house wants them to do. The public option was a trial balloon. I can not stress how cynical and brutal the politics are. This is not about the public option. Anyone looking for the public option needs to look someplace else. It is not going to happen and anybody who says it is is in fantasy land.”

Alex Castellanos:

Well, the public option… it will still keep growing for a few days, but it’s dead. It’s not going to happen.

Gloria Borger:

I think it’s pretty dead, Campbell. I think it’s safe to say that right now it looks like it’s a goner.

Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle:

It’s probably on life support. It’ll go to the Senate floor. There, they will have other votes. There may be other dynamics. There’s another amendment on a public option that probably has a lot more possibility, and that is the so-called Snow amendment, which is a trigger for a public option over the course of several years.

Bill O’Reilly:

The big federal insurance apparatus isn’t going to happen.

Krauthammer:

The wascally wabbit is dead. It doesn’t have a chance.

Dana Perino:

I think what this signaled this weekend is that the public option is dead. It’s not coming back.

Joe Klein:

Well, but the public plan was never going to be on the table.

Chris Matthews:

OK. Let’s take a look at the bottom line. We asked The Matthews Meter, 12 of our regulars, do the Democratic leaders who are pushing the public option now really deep down know that it’s dead, that it can’t be part of a solution that gets 60 votes, 218 in the House?

Sen. Lindsey Graham:

Appearing on FOX News Sunday this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared that a health reform bill in the House “is dead” and that “we should just throw it in the garbage can.”

Jim Cramer:

The public option in health care is dead. So go buy the health care stocks. But what else does President Obama have up his sleeve?

Chris Cillizza:

Snowe’s support in committee virtually ensures that the public option won’t wind up in the final bill as she is on the record opposing such a move and it’s hard to see the White House giving up her support after they won it once.

Bill Kristol:

The real “public option” is to scrap the current grandiose plans and to start over. There is no health care crisis, and doing no harm is far preferable to doing real damage to a good health care system.

David Brooks:

There’s, first of all, the people who still want the public option. I think they’ve unconsciously capitulated; they don’t realize it yet.

Lawrence O’Donnell:

I — Nancy Pelosi firmly believes that when the moment comes, she can gather her caucus together, tell them that she fought harder for the public option than Barack Obama did, than Harry Reid did, than any senator did. No one fought harder for it than Nancy Pelosi, and she is now telling her troops they’re going to have to go forward without it. That moment is going to come.

Steven Pearlstein:

If there is anything that’s been made clear over the last two weeks, it is that the public option is a political non-starter that threatens the entire reform effort. It’s time to let it go.

David Gergen:

Wolf, I think it’s now clear that a robust public option, the type supported and proposed by Senator Rockefeller today, is dead. They simply do not have the votes.

Now the Public Option must be opened to everyone not just to ten percent of Americans.  The only way to keep cost down and provide credible competition to the insurance industry the public option must be an option for all Americans.  As Sen. Wyden has said, all Americans want access to the public option.  Sen Wyden:

According to a quick analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, about 90 percent of all people seeking coverage would not be allowed to enter the insurance exchange offering the government-run choice. The only ones in the exchange would be those who currently lack coverage and a small subset of small business.

Sen. Ron Wyden has doubts about the scope of the public option plan announced Monday. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, immediately jumped on that number.

“I agree with Senator Reid that health reform should give Americans more options. Now, I want to work with him to ensure that all Americans can choose those options,” Wyden said. “The bottom line is that the public option can’t really hold private insurers accountable if it is only competing for 10 percent of the insurance market, because private insurance companies aren’t going to change their business practices if 90 percent of their customers can’t take their business elsewhere.

“Real reform means empowering Americans to choose insurance that works well for them and their family, while rejecting plans that don’t. Including a public option is a step in the right direction, now let’s remove the firewalls in this bill that prevent Americans from choosing it,” Wyden said in a statement.

Apparently the White House has an alternate Health Care plan drafted or nearly so that they plan to produce if there is no success getting a joint bill out of the House and the Senate.

The White House has been secretly drafting its own health care legislation that it may unveil at some point during the debate if officials believe it would help secure passage of a bill, according to sources familiar with the effort.

The White House plan

Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary. The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.

However,

The White House measure appears designed to entice moderate Democrats and perhaps even Republicans into supporting a health care overhaul if legislative efforts in Congress fail or if they move too far to the left. Sources said one possibility would be to invoke the measure if the Senate cannot rally 60 votes to break a filibuster. Another option may be to present details of what the White House wants during a conference between the House and the Senate.

Uhhh, no comprende??  The GOP is staunchly against this effort and has made clear that it will not vote for any health care bill that includes a public option so this writer fails to understand how the White House will make a bill with a public option GOP worthy?  Or, why it should.  The American people are not concerned about bipartisanship they are concerned with getting affordable health insurance.  How we get to that end or the process involved is of little importance to the average American.  We have 45,000 Americans dying each year as stated on the floor yesterday by Rep. Alan Grayson.  Rep. Grayson went on the floor and told the truth about what the GOP plans to do about the 45,000 future Americans who are at risk.  Basically the Congressman said the Republican plan is this:  Don’t get sick or if you do get sick, die quickly.  It was right on point.  Honestly, a few democratic congressman and senators need to channel Grayson’s “straight talk.”  The White House and the Democrats in the House and the Senate need to do what the people demand.  The American people are too invested in this outcome for the leaders in Washington to try and slide by some weak health insurance reform bill and not expect a significant backlash.  We are paying attention and we expect the right result.

We have 60 votes in the Senate so emails from Democratic Senators blaming their inability to secure enough votes for a public option will not fly with anyone who has been paying attention to this debate.  The Democrats have the support and will of the majority of Americans behind them in this fight for the public option, sixty-five percent  to be exact, and a super majority in the Senate.  Therefore, naming the Republicans as the cause of the delay and inability to pass a public option effective day one is somewhat insulting to those who are keenly interested in a real health insurance reform bill.  Baucus, Conrad, and Lincoln (ALL DEMOCRATS) voted against the Schumer public option amendment and that is why the amendment failed not for lack of Republican votes.  Sen. Schumer’s public option amendment was the most conservative public option offered yesterday.  Had the three named Democratic Senators voted for the Schumer public option amendment it would be in the Baucus plan.  However, they did not so it is not in the Senate Finance Committee plan.  The Conservadems must make a choice between their constituents and the special interest (insurance industry).  We already know that the GOP is in pocket of the insurance industry but we expect different, MUCH DIFFERENT, from Democrats.  So Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad, I really have no words.  Baucus claimed that he could not get 60 senators  to vote for a bill with a public option in it and because its his job to get a health care reform bill passed he must vote against any public option.  Newsflash Sen. Baucus, a super majority of Americans will not believe that we have health care reform if a public option is not included in the health insurance reform bill that is effective from DAY ONE.  Thus just passing anything with “reform” in its name is not going to cut it.  The problem with the Conrad and Lincoln vote against Schumer’s amendment is that the senators did not bother to give a reason for their opposition.  Conrad described his co-op idea as an alternative to the public option yet voted against the public option without explaining why not the public option.  Just because you prefer an alternative is not a reason to vote against another viable solution.  Sen. Lincoln voted no by proxy to the Schumer amendment….hmmmm we wonder why if she felt the need to vote against it why not do so in person.

The American people have spoken many times over.  They demand that a public option be included in the health care reform bill.  As warned by Sen. Rockefeller, we cannot allow the 483 billion dollar Baucus bill insurance industry subsidy to happen.   The public option, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will save the government a total of 50 billion dollars and that is a conservative savings estimate according to CBO practice.  So in the name of fiscal responsibility the public option MUST happen.  Sen. Snowe will offer her trigger amendment this week as a “compromise” to the public option.  There is no way that the threat of a “trigger” will do anything to bring down health insurance prices any more than the Prescription Drug bill “trigger” brought down prescription drugs prices.  A so-called “trigger” is not a compromise it is a COP OUT to the INSURANCE INDUSTRY and is unacceptable.  Because the the far left wants a government run single-payer system and the far right wants no government involved in the health insurance industry at all, the compromise is the public option.  Including a ”trigger” that will NEVER be pulled is a cop-out plain and simple.   The American people are not are not blind nor stupid.  It is up to the remaining Senators to make sure they do what their constituents sent them to Washington to do.  REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS.  If 65 percent of Americans want a public option then a public option must be in the bill effective at DAY ONE.    A STRONG and ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION must be in this bill from DAY ONE because that is what the American people want.  Your job senators is to represent the American people NOT the insurance industry.  Right now, Baucus, Snowe, and Lincoln appear to have their priorities twisted.  That NEEDS to change by the time the bill comes up for a vote on the floor WITH the PUBLIC OPTION effective DAY ONE or the American people and the Democratic Party specifically will bear the brunt of your twisted priorities.

We posted this action post last week but because the debate on the public option was postponed from Friday to today this post bears repeating especially in light of the latest CBS/New York Times poll released last Friday.  A whopping 47 percent of Republicans support the public option while only 42 percent oppose it.  In addition, 51 percent of Republicans say that they would oppose a bill without a public option.  Fifty-one percent of REPUBLICANS say that a health insurance reform bill MUST include a public option.  Are you listening Baucus, Nelson, Conrad, et al???  This is BIG NEWS for proponents of the public option and true believers of realhealth insurance reform.  The poll also found that 65 percent of Americans OVERALL want a public option and only 26 percent oppose a public option.  Also, 78 percent of Americans think that the health care system needs fundamental change or a complete overhaul.

The SFC needs to hear from you.  It needs to hear from us that the only way to decrease premiums and provide true competition in the health insurance industry is to include a strong public option.  Don’t let the lobbyists win.  The resistance against the public option by blue dog House members is fading fast because they are hearing from their constituents….people like you.  Now the Senate Finance Committee must hear from you.  Tell them that you support a strong and robust public option and therefore urge [Senator] to vote yes on the public option amendments to the Baucus billfiasco proposed by Sens. Rockefeller and Schumer.  Not all public option amendments are the same.  The Schumer amendment is weaker than the Rockefeller amendment.  Senator Snowe is also proposing Amendment 356, the trigger amendment.  Not good as we have already experienced with the Prescription Drug bill trigger.  The trigger was never pulled and drug prices continue to rise. 

Call your Senate Finance Committee member regardless of whether he/she is a Republican or Democrat.  See full list along with contact information below.

Rockefeller Amendment 187 which creates a public option with rates tied to Medicare + 5 (first three years and then insists that the rates in the subsequent years are closely related to the original rates) and which creates a right to negotiate drug prices…..

Rockefeller Amendment 185 which creates one national exchange and strikes out state and regional exhanges. Again, more choices for consumers.

The second [public option amendment] is written by Senator Schumeralone is an “equal playing field” public option, ie much weaker.

See summary of the amendments here.

Call your Senate Finance Committee Member (especially those in bold and those representing Texas) that thousands of Texans showed up in hopes of receiving free health care last weekend.  The event was said to have been the “largest free clinic” ever to be held in the United States.  Texas has the largest population of uninsured in the country yet Sen. John Cornyn is one of the biggest and most vocal opponents of health care reform.  The Senators in bold have either not revealed their position regarding the public option or have gone on record opposing it.  These Senators must hear what Americans, especially their constituents, want included in the health insurance reform bill.

DEMOCRATS:

Max Baucus (Montana) - (202) 224-2651 or write: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Charles Schumer (New York) -  (202) 224-6542 or write: http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
John Rockefeller (West Virginia) - (202) 224-6472 or write: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Ron Wyden (Oregon) - (202) 224-5244  or write: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) - (202) 224-2043 or write: https://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
John Kerry (Massachussetts) - (202) 224-2742 or write: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) - (202) 224-4843 or write: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) - (202) 224-4822 or write: http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm
Maria Cantwell (Washington) - (202) 224-3441 or write: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/
Bill Nelson (Florida) - (202) 224-5274 or write: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Robert Menendez (New Jersey) - (202) 224-4744 or write:  http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Thomas Carper (Delaware) - (202) 224-2441 or write: http://carper.senate.gov/contact/
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) - (202) 224-5521  or write: http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/types/email-issue.cfm 

REPUBLICANS

Chuck Grassley, Iowa – (202) 224-3744 or write: http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Orrin Hatch, Utah - (202) 224-5251 or write: http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Olympia Snowe, Maine – (202) 224-5344 or write: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Jon Kyl, Arizona -  (202) 224-4521 or write:  http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Jim Bunning, Kentucky - (202) 224-4343 or write  http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Crapo, Idaho – (202) 224-6142 or write: http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Pat Roberts, Kansas – (202) 224-4774 or write: http://www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailPat

John Ensign, Nevada – (202) 224-6244 or write: http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Enzi, Wyoming – (202) 224-3424 or write: http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailSenatorEnzi

John Cornyn, Texas – (202) 224-2934 or write: http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Senator Chuck Schumer reported last night that the Senate Finance Committee would be voting on the public option today.  The SFC needs to hear from you.  It needs to hear from us that the only way to decrease premiums and provide true competition in the health insurance industry is to include a strong public option.  Don’t let the lobbyists win.  The resistance against the public option by blue dog House members is fading fast because they are hearing from their constituents….people like you.  Now the Senate Finance Committee must hear from you.  Tell them that you support a strong and robust public option and therefore urge [Senator] to vote yes on the public option amendments to the Baucus bill fiasco proposed by Sens. Rockefeller and Schumer.  Not all public option amendments are the same.  The Schumer amendment is weaker than the Rockefeller amendment.  Senator Snowe is also proposing Amendment 356, the trigger amendment.  Not good as we have already experienced with the Prescription Drug bill trigger.  The trigger was never pulled and drug prices continue to rise. 

Call your Senate Finance Committee member regardless of whether he/she is a Republican or Democrat.  See full list along with contact information below.

Also, because Senate snail mail is often delayed for weeks for security reasons writing via email is the quickest most efficient way to get your voice heard.  Though all of the Senators must hear from those in support of the public option we bolded the Senators who have shown opposition to the public option thus must be a priority.

Rockefeller Amendment 187 which creates a public option with rates tied to Medicare + 5 (first three years and then insists that the rates in the subsequent years are closely related to the original rates) and which creates a right to negotiate drug prices…..

Rockefeller Amendment 185 which creates one national exchange and strikes out state and regional exhanges. Again, more choices for consumers.

The second [public option amendment] is written by Senator Schumer alone is an “equal playing field” public option, ie much weaker.

See summary of the amendments here.

DEMOCRATS:

Max Baucus (Montana) - (202) 224-2651 or write: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Charles Schumer (New York) -  (202) 224-6542 or write: http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
John Rockefeller (West Virginia) - (202) 224-6472 or write: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Ron Wyden (Oregon) - (202) 224-5244  or write: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) - (202) 224-2043 or write: https://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
John Kerry (Massachussetts) - (202) 224-2742 or write: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) - (202) 224-4843 or write: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) - (202) 224-4822 or write: http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm
Maria Cantwell (Washington) - (202) 224-3441 or write: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/
Bill Nelson (Florida) - (202) 224-5274 or write: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Robert Menendez (New Jersey) - (202) 224-4744 or write:  http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Thomas Carper (Delaware) - (202) 224-2441 or write: http://carper.senate.gov/contact/
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) - (202) 224-5521  or write: http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/types/email-issue.cfm 

REPUBLICANS

Chuck Grassley, Iowa – (202) 224-3744 or write: http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Orrin Hatch, Utah - (202) 224-5251 or write: http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Olympia Snowe, Maine – (202) 224-5344 or write: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Jon Kyl, Arizona -  (202) 224-4521 or write:  http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Jim Bunning, Kentucky - (202) 224-4343 or write  http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Crapo, Idaho – (202) 224-6142 or write: http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Pat Roberts, Kansas – (202) 224-4774 or write: http://www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailPat

John Ensign, Nevada – (202) 224-6244 or write: http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Enzi, Wyoming – (202) 224-3424 or write: http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailSenatorEnzi

John Cornyn, Texas – (202) 224-2934 or write: http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

UPDATE:  The vote and debate on the two public option amendments was postponed until Tuesday Sept 29th so you have the three-day weekend to write your Senate Finance Committee member.  A new CBS/New York Times poll says that 65 percent of Americans want a public option and only 26 percent oppose.  Also, 78 percent of Americans think that the health care system needs fundamental change or a complete overhaul.  Write or call your Senate Finance Committe Member this weekend.

This is the percentage of claim denials by the the top six insurance companies in California within the first SIX MONTHS of 2009.

* PacifiCare — 39.6 percent
* Cigna — 32.7 percent
* HealthNet — 30 percent
* Kaiser Permanente — 28.3 percent
* Blue Cross — 27.9 percent
* Aetna — 6.4 percent

*Data compiled by California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee

The numbers add up to 47.7 million claims that were denied by the top six insurance companies in California in the first half of 2009.  “Every claim that is denied represents a real patient enduring pain and suffering. Every denial has real, sometimes fatal consequences,” said Deborah Burger, RN, CNA/NNOC co-president.

Claim denials equal big profits for big insurance.  Read what Angela Braly, CEO of WellPoint, was taped saying:  ”We will not sacrifice profitability for membership.”  While the rest of the country spiraled into a recession the big insurance giants boasted $15.9 billion in profits last year. 

Lets look at PacificCare and Cigna a little closer:

PacifiCare, for example, denied a special procedure for treatment of bone cancer for Nick Colombo, a 17-year-old teen from Placentia, Calif. Again, after protests organized by Nick’s family and friends, CNA/NNOC, and netroots activists, PacifiCare reversed its decision. But like Nataline Sarkisyan, the delay resulted in critical time lost, and Nick ultimately died. “This was his last effort and the procedure had worked before with people in Nick’s situation,” said his older brother Ricky.

Cigna gained notoriety two years ago for denying a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan of Northridge, Calif. and then reversing itself, tragically too late to save her life.

If you want a public option FireDogLake has put together a fundraising effort to kill the “trigger” option and replace it with the public option.  Please donate  here to make health care affordable for all Americans.  We need a  Strong and Robust PUBLIC OPTION!

The important number of uninsured is not the total number of people without health insurance (30/47 million), the important number is the 18,000 Americans dying EACH YEAR because they do not have health insurance.  To the GOP who continues to make excuses for why the number of uninsured is so high or its other argument that it is not really that high when you subtract these people and those people, please tell me how you deal with the 18,000 deaths each year due to lack of health insurance?  What other industrialized nation can you cite where the conduct of a private industry kills that many people EACH YEAR and the government continues to allow it to happen? 

Public Option

The public option was a part of the President’s health care plan during the campaign as the method to bring down insurance costs.  The focus has been consistent during the campaign and now that the health care reform plan MUST bring down health insurance cost and make it affordable for all.  So the complaint by the White House and some in the main stream media that progressives are overreacting because the President never campaigned on the public option is false because it was in his original health care plan proposed during the campaign.  More importantly the progressives went apoplectic upon hearing that the public option was off the table not so much because of an intractable allegiance to the public option per se but because the alternative proposals intended to reduce insurance cost are ineffective thereby accomplishing no health insurance reform at all.  

None of the alternatives to the public option accomplish a reduction in insurance premiums or health insurance costs more effectively than the public option.  As a matter of fact, none of the proposed alternatives even have a demonstrated potential for bringing down health insurance cost when closely examined. 

Co-ops

A co-op has been proven ineffective because of its inability to ramp up enough members quickly enough to make it/them a viable competitor to the private insurance companies.  In other words, in order to achieve economies of scale the co-op will need hundreds of thousands of customers and the infrastructure to service them immediately.  It has taken the two most cited health care co-ops over sixty years to achieve economies of scale and it is very doubtful that their success can be duplicated in the current business environment.  Not to mention the many barriers to entry for any new start-up private insurance company.  Further, a co-op’s vulnerability and susceptibility to eventually being acquired by a larger insurance company/ies as has happened in the past (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) makes this idea a very weak one.  Under the current proposal out of the Senate Finance Committee, Blue Cross Blue Shield would qualify to become a co-op to Sen. Conrad’s extreme delight.  In other words, private insurance companies would be able to call themselves co-ops thereby enabling them to take full advantage of the 30 or 47 million new captive customers as a result of a mandate without reducing their premiums by one cent.  Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Paul von Ebers has said as much. 

Increased Regulation of Insurance industry

Increased regulation is also ineffective because it is subject to politics and deregulation at the change of political leadership in Washington. Very much like the deregulation of Wall Street. Increased regulation is always subject to deregulation.

Trigger

A trigger relies too much on the insurance industry to develop a conscience and will not work because insurance companies are artificially created entities not human beings and can never develop a conscience.  Further, the artificially created entities are first and foremost profit focused so rest assured that the insurance industry will find a way around a so-called trigger because a public option will dramatically affect their profits.  In addition, historical practices of the insurance industry prove otherwise.  The insurance industry has had decades to self correct knowing that they were increasing the cost of premiums astronomically.  The industry has never even made a superficial effort towards reform why would it do so now if they can delay until the Republicans control the White House again?  This is a BLATANT stall tactic pure and simple.   A trigger will allow insurance companies several more years of exorbitant profits at the expense of thousands of American lives and the financial ruin of thousands more of America’s citizens. A so-called trigger is also subject to the politics of DC by giving the power to a politically appointed HHS Secretary to make the decision to pull the trigger.  What happens when the GOP controls the White House and there is a Republican HHS Secretary?  Why would the insurance industry reform now with the mere threat of a trigger which they have millions of dollars in legal coffers to fight against the trigger.  What is the incentive to the industry to reform immediately?  What are the bench marks?  Further, look at what happened with the prescription drug bill which contained a trigger and though prescription costs continue to expand the trigger has never been pulled. 

Private Insurance Exchange

Mandating that the 30/47 million people currently without insurance participate in an exchange ran by the insurance industry where the only plans available are those offered by private insurers is a joke.  How excatly would this provide cost control.  While the insurance companies are RUNNING the exchange will they also provide competition for themselves in the exchange.  A completely REDICULOUS proposition.  Mass profit seeking insurance companies are the entities that raised premiums 130 percent in the last 10 years.  Now those same profit seeking insurance companies are going to run an exchange that is suppose to provide affordable health insurance to 47 million captive new  customers?  DREAM ON!!!  What makes any imbecile think that this is a plausible solution to bringing down the cost of health insurance ?

Final Thoughts

One question to Sen. Mary Landrieu of Lousiana, a member of Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee, about her comment this past weekend on This Week regarding the public option:

                  ”Many of us are concerned that a public option may undermine the private insurance industry”

By “undermine” Sen. Landrieu do you mean provide competition for?

About the myth that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business.  A public option will not put insurance companies out of business any more than public universities and colleges put Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Howard, Wellesley, Sarah Lawrence, and other private colleges and universities out of business.  An education at the University of California Berkley costs a fraction of what it cost to attend Harvard or Yale yet both ivy league colleges have hundreds of thousands of students clamoring to get in each year and routinely must reject thousands of hopefuls.  The claim is ridiculous on its face and easily disproven simply by looking at the various public and private entities that continue to coexist and thrive in today’s business environment.  Including Medicare/Medicaid (public program) and Aetna/Universal Health (private industry).  Yes the same argument was cited against the passage of Medicare and Medicaid.

We have thousands of people dying as a result of irresponsible and profit centered insurance companies therefore fixing this problem yesterday is non-negotiable.  Non-negotiable not only to progressives but to any person who puts the value of human life above the value of the insurance industry’s unfettered free market and monopolistic existence.

Congressperson, Lloyd Doggett, came out to a rally of two thousand of his neighbors from across Central Texas to show his unwavering committment to the President’s three principles for health insurance reform and a STRONG and ROBUST Public Option!

President Obama just said during a townhall meeting at the Democratic National Committee that “one of the options WILL be a public option.”

CITIZEN: The volunteers have gotten support from over 26,000 people. The debate is heating up, what’s the most compelling argument we can make for health reform?

PRESIDENT: The status quo is unsustainable. Even if you have private insurance, you may end up losing it because costs are going to continue to inflate and your employer may decide to drop it or you may start getting more taken out of your check. There will be an exchange, and it will be the individual’s choice.

One of the options WILL be a public option in the marketplace. 

Insurance companies won’t be able to deny people coverage under fine print for pre-existing coverage or because they are sick.

We’ll see what tomorrow brings….

UPDATE: A new poll shows 77 percent of the American people support a public option.  The new study by SurveyUSA  shows a one point increase from June.

It is no wonder that the polls are reflecting a small decrease in support for health care reform.  The GOP has been mildly successful in its misinformation campaign.  See the results of the latest NBC poll.  The majority of the 47% of survey takers who do not support the public option watches Fox News and believe the following:

• The plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
• Health care reform would lead to a government takeover of the health system
• That taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions
• forty-five percent believe that reform would result in the government making decisions about when the elderly would stop receiving health care. 

None of the above allegations are true but the majority of the people who do not support health care reform believe that the above allegations are true even though they have been proven false by nonpartisan fact-checkers repeatedly.

UPDATE:  All other polls show much higher support for the public option. 

Support for public option

• 68% New York Times & CBS News
• 62% Quinnipiac
• 56% Time
• 54% Washington Post & ABC

Also, the pollster who did the NBC poll that showed only 47% support has heavy ties with the health insurance industry and has been criticized with how it phrased the “public option” question.  Rasmussen polling, known for its right leaning Fox News promoting tendencies, shows that support for a health reform bill plummets without a public option.

Eugene writes about health care reform sans public option.

Without that option, what Obama now calls “health insurance reform” still would be better than no reform at all. But frankly it’s becoming hard to tell. So many genuine reforms have been taken off the table — fully universal coverage, the ability to negotiate prices with the drug companies — that expectations are ratcheted down almost daily.

Giving up the public option would send many of Obama’s progressive supporters into apoplexy, yet the administration has sent clear signals that this is the path of less resistance it’s prepared to take.

“The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health-care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it,” Obama said Saturday at a town hall in Grand Junction, Colo. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, told CNN that a public option is “not the essential element” of comprehensive reform.

But what is the “essential element”? Where, if anywhere, does Obama draw a line in the sand? For reform to be meaningful, there must be some components that a final package absolutely should include. What on Earth might they be?

See remainder of article here.

We have a few questions about the national/regional co-op exchange that Sen. Baucus and company are proposing.  How will such an exchange work and how will it be different from what we have now?  Now we have lack of competition within the insurance industry with around six insurance companies dominating the market.  How does putting those same insurance companies in a national/regional exchange prevent them from raising their prices even more?  Why does such ”reform” mean anything other than providing the insurance companies with 47 million more captive customers who are subject to the same price hikes that most customers are experiencing now?   Sen. Conrad explained the co-op exchange this way:

[A co-op exchange] would be owned and organized by its members — [the co-op]would negotiate rates with providers and would meet the same licensing and regulatory requirements as private insurers.

“I tried to come up with something that is not government-controlled, is a competitive delivery model, but nonprofit,” Conrad said. “It would be on a level playing field with everybody else with, with a different ownership structure.”

The New York Times describes the co-op this way:

….one thing that it’s important to get straight from the beginning is the difference between insurance co-ops and health insurance purchasing co-ops. There was a real movement in the 1990s to purchase insurance through co-ops. Those are similar to the exchanges that are being proposed. A few of them got going. They were not remarkably successfully, either. The idea was that consumers bargain with insurance companies to buy insurance. They’re not insurance providers themselves.

So what we’re talking about are insurance co-ops that would function as insurers themselves.

The argument I make is that it’s really hard to start an insurance company. You don’t just get a bunch of people together and say, “We’re going to start an insurance co-op.” The biggest problem is coming up with a network. You have to find doctors and hospitals and negotiate contracts. Most are already locked up by the dominant insurers. They’re not going to give you — a tiny co-op — a better deal. That’s assuming they’ll deal with you at all. The alternative would be to rent a network, but you’re basically buying your product from your competitor. There’s no way you’ll get a good deal there, either.

Whether the proposal is for an insurance coop or an insurance purchasing coop how is this reform of the health insurance industry again?  In terms of an insurance coop where the coop is the actual insurer please explain why a provider would be incentivized to offer the coop lower prices when it would result in significantly less profits than if it sold the same package to a private insurance company?  In terms of an insurance purchasing coop, Read the rest of this entry »

From the White House:

“The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest,” [Rahm Emmanuel] said in an interview. “The goal is non-negotiable; the path is” negotiable.

On Monday, Mr. Emanuel said the trigger mechanism would also accomplish the White House’s goals. Under this scenario, a public plan would kick in under certain circumstances when competition was judged to be lacking. Exactly what circumstances would trigger the option would have to be worked out.

Mr. President we want a public option.  It is not good enough to promise a trigger in case the health care industry doesn’t act right.  In essence it’s just delaying the inevitable because the insurance industry has had decades to make health insurance more affordable and they have failed.  That goes the same for pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and the AMA.  My mother says people show you how they will treat you.  If insurance companies are notorious for finding legal ways to deny coverage to individuals that they lead to believe are fully covered what makes you think that they will not figure out a legal way to avoid a trigger to a public option.  Especially because it appears that they are doing just that at the moment.  We have a super majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate why are we open to settling?  Really not a good idea.  Americans need a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers or we are right back where we started.  The economy cannot bear the continually increasing cost of health care and nor can employers.  In fact the way employers will deal with it, absent reform, is shift the increasing cost to its employees which will result in more uninsured citizens. 

Lets look at the facts shall we? 

Fact: We spend $2.4 trillion per year in health care.

Fact: We spend more than any other industrialized nation spends on health care.

Fact: The private sector has failed us in providing competitively priced health care.

Fact: You can have health insurance and still not be able to get health care.

Fact: If you don’t have any health insurance you are nearly guaranteed to suffer and/or die before you get any health care.

Fact: The so called safety net has holes in it.

Health care reform requires a public option or you’re just pushing the brussel sprouts around on your plate.  The health care industry needs to eat what’s good for it and suck it up.

At some time in most of our lives we will be affected by a health care issue either ourselves or a close relative.  It is important that law makers hear from us because if they do not health care reform will be a product made by the health care industry.  Why?  Because it is spending $1.4 million a day to make sure that have a seat at the table and their interests are protected. 

The nation’s largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

[snip]

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

We the people need to do the same by putting pressure on our Senators and Representatives by demanding a public option that increases competition in the health care industry.  The GOP’s argument against the public option is that such an option would be unfair to the insurance industry because it cannot compete with the low prices that the government can offer.  My question is how fair is the current system to the 47 million citizens of the United States who cannot afford health care or are being driven into bankruptcy to pay for health care because a few insurance companies hold a monopoly on the industry and refuse to self police.  How fair is a 98% rise in premiums over a six year period because a few companies have a lock on the health care industry and has blocked competition.  Not to mention that as a method of revenue generation the same industry continue to deny coverage or find reasons to deny coverage to those who have actually paid for insurance.  No, the only way to get fair coverage and to keep the insurance companies and the health care industry in line is to offer a public option.  We have been having this debate since FDR and nothing has changed even though the industry has had ample opportunities to reform itself.  The industry continues to protect its billions in profits at any cost (1.4 million), we the people now need to step up. 

Demand a Public Option

Please CALL Senator Max Baucus at (202) 224-2651

Please CALLSenator Olympia Snowe at (202) 224-5344

Please CALL Senator John Rockefeller at (202) 224-6472

Please CALLSenator Ron Wyden at (202) 224-5244

Please CALL Senator Kent Conrad at (202) 224-2043

Please CALLSenator Jeff Bingaman at (202) 224-5521

Please CALL Senator John Kerry at (202) 224-2742

Please CALL Senator Blanche Lincoln at 202-224-4843

Please CALLSenator Debbie Stabenow at (202) 224-4822

Please CALLSenator Maria Cantwell at 202-224-3441

Please CALL Senator Bill Nelson at 202-224-5274

Please CALLSenator Robert Menendez at 202-224-4744

Please CALL Senator Thomas Carper at (202) 224-2441

California–Senator Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-3841

Louisiana–Senator Mary Landrieu (202) 224-5824

Montana–Senator Max Baucus (202) 224-2651

Nebraska–Senator Ben Nelson (202) 224-6551

North Carolina–Senator Kay Hagan (202) 224-6342

North Dakota–Senator Kent Conrad (202) 224-2043

Oregon–Senator Ron Wyden (202) 224-5244

Conservatives for Patients Rights [mouthpiece for the insurance industry] is running ads claiming that a “Government-run plan” will force “119 million off their current insurance coverage, leaving no choices in health insurance and government in control of your health care.”    This is categorically misleading.  What the group fails to say and what the author of the study cited in the ads, John Shields of the Lewin Group, explains is that those 119 million Americans will VOLUNTARILY move to the more economical government plan because it is cheaper not because consumers are being forced to switch.   Shields further explains that private insurers will lose 119 million customers because such customers will opt for the much lower priced public plan premiums.  Think about it, if a customer is offered the exact same product for less money why would anyone choose the higher priced product.  However, the company offering the higher priced products will be forced to lower its prices.  A public plan will force the insurance industry to become more competitive and that is exactly what it is afraid of.  

Between 2000  and 2007, U.S. health insurance premiums rose a whopping 98 percent.  Wages rose a mere 23 percent.  In addition, even though premiums rose so drastically, coverage for illnesses decreased dramatically forcing many American families into bankruptcy due to a denial of coverage.  Without viable competition, a few companies in each state will continue to dominate the market sending health care cost to astronomical levels and health care coverage dwindling even further.  Are you a serious illness and coverage denial away from bankruptcy?

Insurance companies must be held accountable and be forced to provide quality services for competitive prices.  If you think the GOP idea of allowing the private insurance industry to reform itself  is the best way to go, I have 75  years of history that suggest otherwise.  The only way to make the insurance industry competitive and make it more accountable  is to offer a government-run option to American consumers.  The Lewin Group ad is clearly an attempt by private insurance companies to stifle competion because the industry knows that a government-run plan is the best way to drive down health care cost and thus will affect the billions in profits they earn off the backs of working and middle class Americans.  Call your Congressman here and your Senator here.

The polls indicate that 76% of the population including Republicans, Democrats and Independents want a public health care option in the health care reform legislation currently being debated in Congress.  Something like 86% of Democrats want a public option.  If a public option is not included in the health care reform legislation then we can pretty much go back to business as usual with the insurance companies.  The insurance industry will continue to monopolize the health care industry and the price of health care will continue to rise due to lack of competition.  People will will continue to go bankrupt due to excessive health care cost that insurance companies refuse to cover.  Offering a government program will provide the much needed competition to the insurance industry thereby lowering prices of health care overall.  A public option will also provide access to those who currently do not have it.  A public option looks like this:

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 that.

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 with a broad network of providers 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.

Please sign this petition drafted by Dr. Howard Dean.   Also, if you believe that a public option is critical to health care reform call your Senators and let them know your opinion.  Especially those constituents of Senator Diane Feinstein who seems to be wavering and attempting to do some back room dealing for her vote for the public option.

UPDATE:

President Obama’s statement on health care today:

The last issue I’d like to address is health care. 

Right now, Congress is debating various health care reform proposals.  This is obviously a complicated issue, but I am very optimistic about the progress they’re making. 

Like energy, this is legislation that will be paid for.  It will not add to our deficits over the next decade.  We will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health care system – some of which we’ve already announced. 

We will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care.  We simply cannot have a system where we throw good money after bad habits.  We must control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses, and our government into greater and greater debt. 

There is no doubt that we must preserve what is best about our health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctors and their health care plans to keep them.  But unless we fix what is broken in our current system, everyone’s health care will be in jeopardy.  Unless we act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans.  Unless we act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade.  And the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today. 

When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable.  Reform is not a luxury, it is a necessity.  And so I hope that Congress will continue to make significant progress on this issue in the weeks ahead. 

And now, I’d be happy to take your questions.