The Congressional Progressive Caucus today released a statement describing principles and conditions that any public health insurance plan must meet. (h/t mcjoan)
Principles for a Public Option -
The Congressional Progressive Caucus stands united behind President Obama’s call to provide high quality, affordability, and accessibility in healthcare choices for all Americans. The overwhelming majority of Congressional Progressive Caucus members prefer a single-payer approach. If a single-payer plan is not enacted, we agree with President Obama that there must be a robust public health insurance option like Medicare offered alongside the private plans. This public plan would provide a guarantee of coverage, affordable, high-quality and accessible healthcare, and lower costs – regardless of income, health status, race, employment, or gender. We oppose any conditions or triggers undermining and limiting the availability of the public option.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus calls for a robust public option that must:
· Enact concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.
· Consist of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.
· Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation
· Allow patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promote the medical home model, and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits.
· Have the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management, and good public health.
· Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.
· Establish or negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers, and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.
· Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.
· Ensure premiums must be priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.
In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.
DK’s mcjoan also links to the Blue Dog non-starter proposals for quick comparison.
Again, it’s my view that a carefully structured public plan option would lay the groundwork for single-payer in the future. I don’t see anything in the CPC’s principles that would be inconsistent with that view.
Note that the first of the CPC principles rules out the "trigger" mechanism concept floated by Sens. Baucus, Grassley and Snowe. Other principles establish that the public option is open to everyone, without pre-conditions.
This also seems to rule out Sen. Schumer’s proposal that the plan rely exclusvely on premiums or be limited by financing available to private plans. What the CPC is saying, I think, is that we should design the best public option we can to meet consumers’ needs for affordable, quality health care open to all, without regard to the private insurance industry structure or concerns. That puts the consumers’ needs over the private insurer’s desires. From the CPC press release:
“Americans deserve health care that favors patients over the health insurance companies,” said CPC Co-Chair, Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ). “They were given decades to control costs, improve quality and increase access but they have failed. At a minimum, we need to give them real competition in the form of a robust public plan that puts patients first.”
It’s a strong statement to have out there.





33 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
The Scarecrow never rests! Thanks much.
I see that in the full letter, the Progressive Caucus leads by affirming support for single payer.
Now to the hard work of distinguishing the fine points from the Schumer compromise. Off the bat, one line that concerns me is, “Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.” If the public plan is to serve as plan of last resort, likely subject to adverse selection, we need to make sure federal subsidies are not only “no less” but, as needed, “more” than those afforded private plans.
I think the wording they use very cleverly does that, and makes it sound like the industry was trying to hobble the public plan — which they were. It’s a good response.
I’m glad to see that vision, dental, mental health and prescriptions would be covered.
Won’t it be wonderful when we feel secure in the knowledge that we can ALL have quality health care!!!!!
Thanks Scarecrow; honestly appreciate you being on top of this.
In reading thru the diary this “Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation” occassioned the folowing thoughts: ‘gee, this IS single payer!’ and ‘this will NEVER fly’ ;you can bet whatever there will be ‘limitation’, especially for those already using employer sponsored plans (probably some sort of tax deduction and more).
I may be right, I may be wrong, anger is an energy.
It’s also important that whatever plan Dems produce it should be one Repubs won’t trash the second they’re in charge.
Please share what evidence you have that the Repubs won’t do that no matter what goodness may be occurring; last 30 years shows the determination to do away with ANY aspect of government that rings their bells of ‘new deal’ or ‘great society’.
The ONLY way -if at all possible- is have a good system that people are both happy with and dependent on. The dependency provides the necessary support for governing; remember Nyquist’s ’starve the government to death’?
To follow-up on your article above:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..gress-what
Voters To Congress: What’s Wrong With Single-Payer Health Care?
Give voters a voice in the debate over health care reform and they ask about the one thing most lawmakers decided from the start would not be considered: “Why not a single-payer program?”
That was by far the most popular question posed to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Thursday night, when they took questions on the House floor that had been submitted and voted for online — something of a first for Congress.
The question-and-answer hour was expected to focus on public health care options as part of a health care landscape that would still be dominated by private insurance companies. But online voters, who cast almost 30,000 votes at progressivecaucus.org between Tuesday night and Thursday, hijacked the session, demanding to know why a single-payer program is not being considered.
Though only five of more than 750 questions were chosen to be asked at the event, some proved far more popular than others. The top questions included how much influence the insurance companies have had on the reform debate and why the public can’t have a level of health care comparable to that of the assembled congressmen.
“What is it going to take for you to WAKE UP and smell the catastrophe that for-profit healthcare is?” read the fifth most popular question, the last on the list asked of the caucus members.
The novelty of the forum created a sense of actual dialogue between the legislators and their constituents, said Darcy Burner, the executive director of the nonprofit Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, which advises the caucus and organized the discussion.
“Part of what we’re trying to do is help build relationships between members of Congress and the grassroots such that there is more mutual trust than exists right now, so it didn’t surprise me at all that the questions were somewhat adversarial,” she said.
The legislators overwhelmingly support a single-payer program, Burner said, but don’t consider it feasible. At this point, they’re pulling for “a robust public plan that will provide real competition,” she said.
The Progressive Caucus includes some 71 House Democrats, but only four made it to Thursday night’s session: Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who moderated the forum.
“For decades, Americans’ calls for health care reform have fallen on deaf ears in Congress,” Ellison said during the meeting. As for Ellison’s missing colleagues, Burner blamed delays that kept them from starting before 9 p.m., but she lauded the participation of the four who attended. Both the foundation and the caucus will continue to press for greater interaction with the public, she said.
“It’s the people’s House. It’d be nice if the people had more input,” Burner said. “The more people who are participating, I think, the more valuable the dialogue’s going to be.”
Don’t know if the above quote is kosher or not. Sorry if I’ve broken the rules or laws.
Thanks again Scarecrow for continuing the dialogue and education.
Blessings to all,
Thanks for the link to the CPC meeting.
Where does Kennedy stand regarding the progressive caucus? I was worried when an article came out saying he wanted the public option to be based on Medicaid. I couldn’t believe it, with all the problems many states have and the differences between states coverage. Shudder. There was also an income cap, about $110K for a family of four, iirc.
Yes, because California, under the leadership of those compassionate conservatives is getting ready to boot thousands of children from their healthcare.
fuckery.
Cruelty.
Murderous.
Obama Preparing For Major Push On Health Care Legislation
His “hands off” approach was gonna produce a really, really bad sellout. I’m glad to see this… get Baucus out of the way if possible.
We obviously can’t do this in a “bipartisan” way. That hogwash ain’t washing.
Medicaid is almost dead, Bush killed it. Let’s try France’s program…….
There is no possibility the Congress will ever model anything based on a European program.
There is no possibility the Congress will ever model anything based on a European program.
maybe they could call it “Freedom
FriesCare”.Robert Reich has some warnings about who and what may do in the public plan.
Word!
I’ve another post on that Times article. It seemed pretty one-sided to me.
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5642
Well, France sent us the Statue of Liberty, and we kept it.
we need something uniquely american ™.
so how about a fixed up medicare?
Medicare works very well and I’m pleased with it. Seems to me a plan like that would work for all.
One of the problems with employer-provided coverage is that you’re stuck with a limited set of choices, none of which may be any good to you. Or, like the ones my employer provides, a choice of bad, worse, and limited-locations-and-no-choices, and a 90-page ‘informational’ PDF written in ‘insurance English’.
Why the heck do they think we want single-payer so much?
not because everyone could be covered and all costs payed for with the same amount of money as we spend now?
not because employer-provided coverage puts american manufacturing at a massive disadvantage?
not because we could probably save something like 20,000 lives per year?
from national nurses organizing committee:
Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages
Because it is so obviously the best choice that you need to be deluded or bribed to say otherwise, and I for one am thankful you keep banging that drum, selise.
completely OT, but may be of interest….
i just listened to the first session (ASSESSMENT OF FED/TREASURY RESPONSE TO CRISIS) of
18th Annual Hyman P. Minsky Conference on the State of the U.S. and World Economies
Meeting the Challenges of Financial Crisis
truly excellent. highly recommended, especially the 1st, 2nd and 3rd speakers (William Kurt Black, Marshall Auerback, Thomas Ferguson) of the first session listened to in sequence.
other speakers at the conference were galbraith and stiglitz (they’re good too, but that first session is killer). mp3s and pdfs are available at the link.
A correspondent from one of the [OFA]DNC|???] house parties came away feeling this way:
Why is the Progressive Caucus negotiating with itself?
same back at you DrZ!
if we care deeply about something, the least we can do is speak up.
good night to you and to all….. zzzzzz
can’t resist replying….
this is just a wild guess that i’m pulling out of a dark place:
to create a fake fight so that obama can come to the rescue of a version of the public plan (that will not lead to a single payer system that covers everyone and is not tied to employers or individual premiums) and yet be portrayed in a positive progressive light because he won a major policy battle on behalf of all americans.
all about building that brand.
Folks – please take a second to email Max Baucus:
http://baucus.senate.gov/conta…..subj=issue
Also Carper, Wyden, Schumer and Specter. We need to really keep the heat on these guys.
Yes, single payer. Call it what you’d like.
America already has the General Motors of health care systems, so why change? What could possibly be better than a huge mess that delivers crappy outcomes and ruins your finances even if you are insured? I say “pshaw” to that Frances Perkins lady, who, as Labor Secretary under Roosevelt thought there was some kind of connection between universal health care and economic security. Crazy bitch, huh? She even made it part of the New Deal legislation. Fortunately, the brave and patriotic guys at the AMA shot her down. That’s what so great about America, our arrogance, especially our male arrogance. European health care is for pussies, probably a consequence of too many female MPs in their parliaments. And it’s way too cheap! Did you know that every single health care system in the Nordic countries costs about 30-40% per capita less than the US system to operate. How the fuck is a doctor supposed to pay cash for his new Beemer? Thank God, and thank Jesus, for the lack of curiosity on the part of our members of congress. And thank God especially for Max Baucus and his brave efforts to keep that socialist-communist-nut-job notion of universal health care off the table. Chevy, please.