Senator Feinstein released a statement on the health care debate, and at times really seems to understand what the key issues are and her stances are all along the lines of something I could support:
What I Support
I basically believe that reform should be incremental and should cover the following:
- Allow people to keep their current healthcare coverage. Millions of Americans have insurance that meets their needs. In all of the proposals that Congress is considering, those happy with their current plan will be able to keep it.
- Stop certain practices of insurance companies. Any bill should end discrimination based on preexisting conditions, stop insurance companies from dropping insurance when people become sick, and prevent the unreasonable denial of treatment. There must also be limits to out-of-pocket expenses to ensure that Americans are not driven into financial ruin by illness.
- Control insurance premiums. Insurance premiums have doubled over the last 9 years, 3 times faster than wages. Meanwhile, the profits of the nation’s largest private insurance companies increased 428 percent from 2000 to 2008 (Health Care for America NOW). This is unacceptable. Insurance for healthcare is an urgent and universal need, but will not be sustainable and universal if the profit margin remains unconstrained.
In order to see that premiums are affordable, I believe that all non-direct healthcare costs (advertising, overhead, profits, and other administrative costs) should be limited and not exceed 10 percent. All premium rate adjustments should be subject to review and approval by a Health Insurance Rate Authority. Bottom line: your health insurance must remain affordable. Your premiums cannot be allowed to double again in the next nine years, as they have in the past nine.
Another way of stabilizing premium affordability is the public option. Depending how the competition is structured, this “option” could compel insurance companies to lower premiums to remain competitive. It remains a viable proposal. The public option should be one of a variety of choices for people who want improved coverage, giving them an option between a private insurance plan and a public one. The public option is simply that—an option. No one will be required to enroll in the public plan. Instead, it would offer consumers an additional choice as they select a health insurance policy. Instead of choosing between policies offered only by private insurance companies, people could choose to buy a public insurance plan. Those that prefer to buy private insurance could still do so.
Not bad, but here is where she goes wrong (emphasis mine).
The purpose of creating a public plan is to increase competition so that premium costs can be controlled. It is very clear that in the current market, private insurance companies do not control the price of premiums. The public option will not replace anyone’s private insurance coverage, but it could prevent future premium increases as private insurance companies lower their prices to compete with a public option. I am also open to considering a non-profit co-operative model, as long as it can accomplish the critical goal of controlling premium costs and spurring competition. Because insurance company profit taking has been so high, it will be very difficult to control premium costs without some non-profit option.
There is simply no way that non-profit co-ops can compete effectively or have the bargaining power that the private companies have. Particularly in states where 80% or more of the private health insurance is provided by one health insurance company. The only tool that stands a chance to compete is to give Americans the option of buying into a federal plan that can compete.
But there is more that is wrong.
With over 20 percent of Californians uninsured, healthcare reform must expand coverage to those who cannot currently afford it. Any expansion of coverage must be sustainable in the long-term, and be affordable without requiring adding costs to California and its counties, and without becoming another entitlement. This is difficult to do, and it remains to be seen how it will be accomplished.
Senator, you’re just not being honest. The best way to control growing costs is a single payer system. That no one is willing to fight for it may be a truth, but it isn’t difficult to see how cost savings could be accomplished.
And one more:
Health reform should not address end of life care. I feel strongly that anything relating to end of life care does not belong in the bill. These are private family matters that do not require legislation.
Again, an untrue statement. The bills making their way through Congress don’t mandate end of life issues. They are designed to help pay for those expenses (counseling and consultation fees) for when the families make those decisions to talk to a professional about them.
Why can’t democrats stand up for the truth? Sadly, it doesn’t seem that the California Senator will be a leader for a state that has higher than average uninsured numbers at all income levels. This all seems pretty CYA to me.
____
It was good to see the President point out the idiocy of Blanche Lincoln’s logic on where the Democratic agenda should be. This is the more feisty president I wanted, but probably shouldn’t have expected.
So, while I was traveling, President Obama held a party for the gays.
The president’s memorandum was pretty weak soup after a week of heated criticism of his administration’s language in their DOMA brief. As stated earlier in this blog, Harry Reid basically passed the buck on DOMA to the president and he has passed it back. The actual memorandum is arguably not permanent and arguably doesn’t extend new options for federal agencies.
