Black Lawmakers Jubilant Over Passage of Health Care Bill

Brown 2 months, 3 weeks ago on Wordpress

Healthy Competition

How to Structure Public Health Insurance Plan Choice to Ensure Risk-Sharing, Cost Control, and Quality Improvement

By Jacob Hacker

Institute for America’s Future and The Center on Health, Economic and Family Security; University of California, Berkeley

April 08th, 2009

Related Topics: Health Care for All

Video highlights of report author Jacob Hacker and Institute for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey discussing the findings.

A

• Download Healthy Competition: How to Structure Public Health Insurance Plan Choice to Ensure Risk-Sharing, Cost Control, and Quality Improvement here

• Jacob Hacker: “The Case For Public Plan Choice in National Health Reform: Key to Cost Control and Quality Coverage” (PDF)

• Jacob Hacker: “Health Care for America” report and the Lewin Group cost analysis

• Diane Archer: Massachusetts Health Reform: Near Universal Coverage, But No Cost Controls or Guarantee of Quality, Affordable Health Care for All (PDF)

• Frank Clemente: “A Public Health Insurance Plan: Reducing Costs and Improving Quality” (PDF)

• The Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System: A 2020 Vision and the Policies to Pave the Way

• Leaders and Experts Agree that a Public Insurance Option is Critical to the Success of Obama’s Health Reform Proposals (PDF)

Executive Summary

The debate over health care reform has increasingly centered on the issue of “public plan choice”—whether Americans younger than 65 who lack employment-based coverage should have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan modeled after Medicare. The central argument for public plan choice is that such a plan, offered as a choice within a new national insurance “exchange,” provides an essential set of security guarantees, ensuring that Americans without insurance from their place of work can find a plan that offers them quality, affordable health care through a broad choice of providers in all parts of the country.

For public plan choice to provide such guarantees, however, the public plan must be properly structured, compete on a truly “level playing field” with private plans, and have the authority to use its bargaining power as one of many tools to encourage greater value in health care delivery. The most effective and easily implemented model for the new public plan is a “Medicare-like” plan that builds on Medicare’s administrative infrastructure and basic framework of coverage but is separate from Medicare’s risk pool and departs from Medicare in a number of key respects regarding payment and benefits.

To create a level playing field requires attention to the “three R’s” of workable public-private competition: rules that are the same for both the public plan and private plans, risk adjustment that protects plans from being competitively disadvantaged if they enroll a less healthy group of people, and regional pricing that allows private plans and the public plan to compete within regions on the same terms, rather than having the public plan compete on a national basis with regionally based private plans (whose premiums may be lower or higher

in any given region).

Finally, giving the public plan the authority to bargain for reasonable rates is an essential item on the menu of cost control—and one that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and other budget watchdogs are likely to “score” as producing savings (in contrast with many other currently favored cost-control strategies). Nonetheless, there are reasonable concerns about how the new public plan will use its bargaining power—concerns reflected in current proposals for a price-taking (rather than price-making) public plan that would have limited ability to secure fair rates.

However, a watered-down public plan would be a grave mistake. Instead, the public plan should include safeguards designed to ensure that providers are fairly represented and that bargaining for lower prices does not negatively affect patients’ access to care or shift costs onto private insurers. Indeed, a better alternative to a public plan without price-setting authority would be allowing private fee-for-service style plans to piggyback on the public plan in setting their own prices.

Public plan choice is rooted in existing precedents that have shown themselves to work, rather than speculative convictions about how a delicately balanced new system will operate. It must be part of any successful reform package. Without public plan choice, Americans without workplace insurance will be put in jeopardy, private insurers will lack an effective check on their actions, and the opportunity to place our crumbling framework of health financing on a secure foundation will be lost. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Betty 2 months, 3 weeks ago on Wordpress

My friend recommended me a very interesting place ****** MatchWealthy.com ****** It’s where wealthy singles looking for someone to enjoy their wealthy lifestyle with.

Reply

Blacks4Barack 2 months, 3 weeks ago on Wordpress

RECONCILIATION:

Should Be A Household Word

By Greg Jones

Blacks4Barack

For some reason the media and even our politicians keep pounding the vital importance of the Senate obtaining 60 votes in the Senate to pass the health care reform legislation. There’s the non-stop ‘what will (Traitor) Joe Lieberman do’…or ‘will they get (R) Olympia Snowe’…or ‘will Harry Reid get the 60 votes he needs…’? 60…60…60 !!! That’s all we hear. I’m not sure if the media is trying to add drama to the health care issue in an attempt to stimulate audience ratings or if it’s an orchestrated tactic in hopes of keeping Americans ill-informed through the direction of our great politicians, but the FACT is, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid DOES NOT need 60 votes to pass the health care bill but in fact ONLY 51- a simple majority, which makes a huge difference-through a procedure commonly used and known as RECONCILIATION.

Reconciliation is ” a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster (only needing 51 votes to pass). Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party “. The reconciliation procedure is limited to being used for budget related legislation that costs or raises substantial amounts of money. In the case of the Senate health care bill, that would include the expansion of Medicare or Medicaid, revenue-raising tax provisions, and even the creation of a public health insurance option, depending on how it’s written. So the reconciliation procedure CAN be used to pass the health care bill with only 51 VOTES !

The downside of the bill being passed through this procedure is that, due to a ruling known as the Byrd Rule, non-budget legislation designed to regulate the insurance industry could not be included in the bill and would have to be voted on in a separate bill which would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. But there is a strategy that can be used to overcome even this obstacle as described by Ryan Grimm of HuffPo:

But there’s another alternative, according to Martin Paone. Paone, who served as a Democratic Senate floor staffer for 29 years, has been advising Democrats as they craft their legislative strategy. He proposes that Democrats try to get 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule — which would then allow the inclusion of those non-budget-related provision in one bill that would require only 51 votes for final passage.

What’s the advantage? And why would any senator who opposes the entire bill vote for such a waiver? The answer can be found in the specific proposals that would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Mostly, those would include reforms to the way the insurance industry operates — for example, a ban on using preexisting conditions to deny coverage, or a law that insurance companies can’t drop a client just because they get sick.

Those are wildly popular reforms. Getting 60 votes to support those policies is much easier than getting 60 for a public health insurance option, which Republicans and some conservative Democrats oppose.

Conservative senators such as Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) or Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) could, in voting for a Byrd Rule waiver, put themselves on the record as being in support of popular insurance industry reforms, while still opposing final passage of the bill — a political strategy that may be appealing to them.

So, as the media continues their daily rant of how imperative it is that EVERY Democratic Senator vote yes on the health care bill remember one FACT that they seem to want to hide from We The People. There IS a way for the Senate to get the bill passed WITHOUT 60 votes…without Traitor Joe…without Olympia Snowe…without Mary Landrieu…making them absolutely meaningless in the debate.

Now, WE must let Harry Reid know that WE know that this option is in fact available to him. Call…Email…and DEMAND that if he feels he doesn’t have the 60 votes needed to block the filibuster, then We The People…

DEMAND

RECONCILIATION !

When they, our great politicians realize that WE KNOW that they have this option…they will be FORCED to use it…even if they had other intentions (like letting the bill stall or even fail). Help the word RECONCILIATION become a household word. Spread the fact that this IS in fact an alternate means of the Senate getting the bill passed. Since day one, President Obama has stated that he would not be able to create Change on his own…that he would need OUR help. Time to do OUR part by DEMANDING that our politicians do EVERYTHING possible, including RECONCILIATION, to stop 44,000 Americans from DYING each year due to the lack of access to quality health care, by passing health care reform-with a strong public option-for all.

Email the media to let them know that WE know

and are DEMANDING that our politicians

Get It Done ... See all content Hide content

Reply

jfffnn 3 months ago on Wordpress

Health reform is not about race it’s about affordability.That is why many white lawmakers voted for the bills passage.Health insurance premiums are way too expensive and that is why a public option is needed. A person can eat right and exercise and still get sick,it happens all the time. Personal responsibilty is all well and good but falling ill does happen which is why people have health isurance if they can afford it.The insurance copanies know this but it does not give them the right to highway robbry with high premiums. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

David 3 months ago on Wordpress

This is a bunch of rhetoric from the black law makers there is on merit to this. The Government should just have laws that makes insurance companys have equality for people and if people don’t buy insurance for what ever reason that be there bill. Before doing things use cognition about things snafu can happen . you peope know Murphy’s Law ! Self responsible is not racist . Health prudence is how active you are and how you eat . ... See all content Hide content

Reply

PLANTATION 3 months ago on Wordpress

PROVERBS 3: 27 . Do Not Withold Good From Those To Whom It Is Due , When It Is In Your Power To Do It .

Peace & Blessings , Power To God’s People !

Reply

Blacks4Barack 3 months ago on Wordpress

Congress Passes Health Bill…MORE INFO:

Another Historic Feat for President Obama; See list of Democrats who voted NO; Rep. Cao link; Read complete 1990-page bill; Hear the Bill (audio version); Read the Stupak Amendment; WATCH: President Obama’s comments on historic Congressional vote.

Visit: http://blacks4barack.blogspot.com/2009/11/house-passes-health-bill-another .html ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Juicy_Amber09 3 months ago on Twitter

Black Lawmakers Jubilant Over Passage of Health Care Bill - By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Analyst November 8,... http://ow.ly/160isv

Reply