Mary Landrieu Is Against The Public Option, But Does She Know What It Is?
AP quotes Mary Landrieu “I’m not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be.”
Steve Benen thinks she’s forgetting a few things:
That is, except for Medicare, which is a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And Medicaid, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And the V.A. system, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And S-CHIP, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports — and takes personal advantage of.
The larger issue here, I think, is that unlike these programs the “public option” wouldn’t be a taxpayer-subsidized program. It would be a government-run health insurance plan that people could buy.
Interestingly, my colleague Zaid Jilani observed the other day that Landrieu has been attributing the popularity of the program to the fact that people like the idea of “free health care”:
LANDRIEU: I think when people hear “public option” they hear “free health care.” Everybody wants free health care. Everybody wants health care they don’t have to pay for. The problem is, is that we in governments and business have to pick up the tab and as individuals. So I’m not at all surprised that the public option’s been sold as free health care. But there is no free lunch.
When I first read these remarks, I thought Landrieu was saying that the public was misunderstanding the proposal. She thought people thought the public option meant bigger subsidies for them and didn’t understand what the proposal really is. Now that I’ve read her latest remarks, however, I think maybe she doesn’t understand what’s being proposed and thinks that liberals are proposing to create an additional spending commitment. In reality, adding a public option would make the Finance bill cheaper and not involve any additional taxpayer subsidies.
64 Responses to “Mary Landrieu Is Against The Public Option, But Does She Know What It Is?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
“I think maybe she doesn’t understand what’s being proposed and thinks that liberals are proposing to create an additional spending commitment.”
I think maybe she knows exactly what’s being proposed, but is adopting a misleading right-wing frame because she believes it is in her political interest to serve the interests of AHIP, and to curry favor with the large number of right-wing voters in her home state who are occasionally willing to vote for conservative Democrats like Mary Landrieu.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
What, exactly, is the purpose of being a US Senator if you don’t actually care to learn such facts? You could just sell out and go into business and make even more money that way.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Might there be someone in some proximity to Ms. Landrieu – I don’t know, perhaps a Senator, or Representative, or, oh, a member of her staff – would could explain these things to her? What does she do all day? Watch “I Love Lucy” re-runs and occasionally show up to be interviewed?
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I agree with LaFollette Progressive.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Put yourself in Landrieu’s for a moment. Is it easier to maintain your reputation as a conservative Democrat and keep the median voter in your state and your contributors happy by saying something you know is bullshit and make people like Matt think you don’t know what you are talking about or to carefully explain why you don’t support the public option?
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Nobody ever accused Landrieu of being of even media intelligence. She’s a “legacy admit” to the Senate, as GW Bush was to Yale. Bobby Jindal is a fantasist of literally medieval proportions, but he runs smart circles around Landrieu and the unlamented Kathleen Blanco.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Median intelligence, though I like my first usage too.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Mary Landrieu is a fucking dipshit.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Someone needs to explain the “public option” to me, too.
If it doesn’t get any subsidies, then how is it any different than any other non-profit health insurance system that people can buy? What difference does it make that it’s “public” if it’s not getting any public money? Why don’t advocates of the “public option” just set up a non-profit that does everything they think the “public option” should do?
This is an honest question. I don’t understand what the “public option” is supposed to be.
(My suspicion: the public option actually would get subsidies of some form, or otherwise impose costs that are off-budget.)
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
LaFollette Progressive is correct in that she knows exactly what she’s saying.
It’s the typical conservative attack on liberal policies. That they’re expensive; that there’s “no free lunch” that government is bad.
But the AP piece also reports
Which I find surprising.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Corporatist is what corporatist does.
This is the same Landrieu family that lobbied on behalf of Tenet Healthcare after Hurricane Katrina, the owner of Memorial Medical Center. 35 patients died in MMC while lingering for up to five days in a sweltering, toxic gumbo.
After Landrieu and Quinn Gillespie lobbying, Jeb Bush landed a cushy spot on the Tenet Board.
Everyone expects Louisiana politicians to be dirty. The question is how much muck can America stand?
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2008/12/political-links-to-hurricane-katrinas.html
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
No she’s saying the public option is popular only because people think it’s free.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Yglesias is against black solar panels, but does he know what they are?
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
If it doesn’t get any subsidies, then how is it any different than any other non-profit health insurance system that people can buy? What difference does it make that it’s “public” if it’s not getting any public money? Why don’t advocates of the “public option” just set up a non-profit that does everything they think the “public option” should do?
In a nutshell, the key difference between the public option and a random non-profit insurer is that the federal government provides the start-up capital, guarantees a minimum level of services, and mandates that this option be provided on the health insurance exchange. However, once the option is up and running the operating costs will be paid for by individual premiums, not from tax revenues.
The more “robust” versions of public option gives the government some measure of control over negotiating prices with medical providers and drug companies, possibly by tying payments directly to Medicare rates.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Senators work many hours and are expected to vote on more public policy matters than they can ever hope to understand. Then they are also expected to raise money for reelection and explain themselves to voters. In this Democrats from blue states have an advantage. They can just speak the party talking points. Landrieu on the other hand can’t do that. She has to try to sound like moderate. I have no idea what she thinks about this issue, but I hope she isn’t a problem.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
In a nutshell, the key difference between the public option and a random non-profit insurer is that the federal government provides the start-up capital, guarantees a minimum level of services, and mandates that this option be provided on the health insurance exchange. However, once the option is up and running the operating costs will be paid for by individual premiums, not from tax revenues.
Other than the source of start-up capital, which really isn’t very important, that isn’t any different from a non-profit insurer.
Will the public option be allowed to fail? Will it pay premium taxes? Will it have to comply with SOX regulations and market conduct exams?
The only way the public option saves any money is by dictating provider reimbursement.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Aren’t we all being a little unfair to Landrieu?
I assume that even most right wing Republican Senators are in favor of Medicare and the VA system. I suppose a bunch of them are against SCHIP and Medicaid but I would think you would get over 95 votes against the repeal of Medicare.
So isn’t every single Senator who claims to be against a public option in the same class as Landrieu?
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
While Mary Landrieu butchers the public option, her family did not have a role in garnering Jeb Bush a slot on the Tenet Board. Quinn Gillespie was the firm lobbying the White House on corporate governance.
Landrieu Public Relations lobbied Congress on Medicare for Tenet in 2006.
Funny, Mary can’t get the Medicare Part E (Medicare for Everyone) analogy. Maybe she’ll call Phyllis Landrieu, noted lobbyist for clarification.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Ed,
The public option would get the same subsidation as other insurance. The difference between the public plan, and a non-profit like Blue Cross is this: A non-profit can ensure that it isn’t making a profit by paying its top executives huge sums of money, therefore it still has plenty of incentive to gouge its customers.
The real benefit of the public option is more subtle though. By demonstrating that the federal government can create and run a health insurance plan that accomodates anybody – not just seniors, poor people and veterans – and do it more cheaply and better than private companies, we threaten the existance of private insurance. Private insurers will be forced to act more efficiently, and health care costs will be more effectively controlled. However, I, for one, don’t think private health insurers will be able to compete for core health insurance products. They will be reduced to selling luxury insurance products. Once we have single payer for core insurance needs, costs may even start to go down.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
the federal government provides the start-up capital
That amounts to a subsidy, doesn’t it?
guarantees a minimum level of services
Why can’t a non-profit do that?
mandates that this option be provided on the health insurance exchange.
I don’t know what this means.
And aren’t there already lots of non-profit insurance companies? Are they failing in some way, and if so why do we expect the “public option” to be able to avoid similar failures?
I’m still having trouble understanding the case for the “public option,” or maybe even what it’s supposed to be.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
No, that’s the point of this post. The public option isn’t like those things. Landrieu said she was against the public option, then said she’d always be against something that the public option isn’t. That something does happen to describe things that she almost certainly does not oppose. She’s being either woefully ignorant or despicably disingenuous.
People who are honestly opposed to the public option oppose it because they don’t want the federal government competing with private industry. Landrieu isn’t saying that.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
A non-profit can ensure that it isn’t making a profit by paying its top executives huge sums of money
So if I understand right, the argument is that all the current non-profits are failing because their officers act in their own self-interest rather than in the customer’s interest. And you argue that government officials won’t be inclined, or able, to do that. Is that right?
Also implicit in your argument is that a major problem causing high costs in non-profit insurance is high salaries to top executives (as opposed to other forms of waste or inefficiency.) Is that right?
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Also, why couldn’t advocates set up non-profit insurers with caps on top salaries? Would that be just as good as a “public option?”
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
the federal government provides the start-up capital…
That amounts to a subsidy, doesn’t it?
Yes and no. It’s a temporary subsidy that is projected, in the long run, to reduce federal health care outlays.
guarantees a minimum level of services…
Why can’t a non-profit do that?
Did you miss the part where it’s the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT guaranteeing the minimum level of services? Sure, a non-profit can guarantee a minimum level of services. But that’s not quite the same thing.
mandates that this option be provided on the health insurance exchange… I don’t know what this means.
If you don’t know what this means, then you know absolutely nothing about the health care reforms under consideration in Congress, and I’m afraid I can’t help you. Use Google. Read. Watch a news broadcast that doesn’t rhyme with “Mocks Screws”.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The entire medical/health insurance sector is failing.
Insurers are failing because of perverse incentives which encourage behavior that causes costs to rise industry wide. There’s nothing about non-profits that exempt them from these incentives. A public plan would not have these perverse incentives, and would have the clout to push back against them.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Mary Landrieu saw how John Breax made out, and is setting herself up to follow in his footsteps to K Street.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
LaFollette Progressive:
I don’t know why you’re being rude to me. I’m just trying to understand you’re argument. And I never, ever watch Fox News (don’t even have cable.)
I know about the proposed “exchanges” in some bills, but I still don’t understand what you mean by “mandates that this option be provided.” Why wouldn’t a non-profit also appear on the exchange? Also, are you claiming that the “public option” would for some reason have “better” benefit levels than would be possible with a non-profit?
Njorl:
Could you be more specific about what perverse incentives a non-profit would face, and how a non-subsidized “public option” would avoid those incentives? (BTW, I agree that our system is majorly screwed up, I’m not debating that.)
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
She knows what’s going on. The immoral cunt is simply more worried about taking flak from the wingnuts than she is about the 45,000 people who will die every year unnecessarily because cunts like her vote against health care reform.
These “centrists” are little more than weasels without principles, without a sense of right and wrong.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
ed,
I’ll assume that you’re posting in good faith here, but you’re really coming across as a concern troll, which is probably why LaFollette Progressive didn’t have the most conciliatory tone.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Basically correct. “Non-profit” incentives are essentially identical to profit insurance incentives (particularly setting executive salaries). The public option executives are civil servants with salaries set by Congress, and the incentives are like other civil servant s.
In addition, the oversight for the public option is Congress. The oversight for a non-profit is theoretically its board elected by its members, but in practice there’s no public or member oversight.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Ed,
for someone cliaiming such ignorance, you are transparently attempting to steer the argument up a pointless blind alley. Non-profits are not behaving significantly differently than for-profit insurers.
This is only a small part of the problem. I only mentioned this as a way to demonstrate that non-profit does not mean altruistic. Second, every human being acts in their own self interest. The only reason anyone running a business entertains the customer’s interests is because it is a way to make more money. The bottom line is more important than the customer. The customer is impoertant because he affects the bottom line.
High ranking government officials make a tiny fraction of their private industry counterparts. The head of HHS makes about 5% of what the head of Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachussets makes. Their pay is not connected to depriving customers of services that are due to them. The head of a public plan will not be able to alter the balance of administrative costs vs benefits costs in order to raise his own salary. That power would likely be controlled by GSA or directly by congressional budgeting.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Senator Mary Landrieu needs to read more. Free care? Hardly.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Sen Landrieu is of course entitled to oppose the public option on its merits. But she cannot or will not even describe the plan accurately, and denigrates the intelligence of the voters who say they support it in public opinion polls.
I think it would be fine thing for the Democratic party and the country if she was removed from office. Let her constituents in Louisiana have the true right-wing loony of their hearts’ desire.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
the incentives are like other civil servants
I think the concern would be that civil servants have little incentive to eliminate waste and inefficiency. They lack incentives to go for the big payday, but they also lack incentives to do the difficult job of streamlining organizations and implementing various beneficial changes. Relative to non-governmental organizations, they also usually face more demanding labor market rules, powerful employee unions, etc., which makes streamlining inherently more difficult.
I take it you find these concerns less than convincing?
Would you also favor creating “public options” in other industries, (like for example a public airline), or is health insurance especially favorable for this idea?
(An idea: it might be interesting to look at the higher education sector, where “public option” universities exist along side private universities. Are there any large difference in salaries and efficiencies between the two? Of course, public universities are heavily subsidized, so the comparison isn’t perfect.)
The oversight for a non-profit is theoretically its board elected by its members, but in practice there’s no public or member oversight.
I think you are probably right in practice. But I’m still trying to understand the difference between the “public option” and a hypothetical non-profit started by advocates of the public option. Couldn’t this new non-profit have a well designed board structure, and caps on executive salaries, and basically everything you are getting from the “public option?”
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The first impression people have about a health insurer is that they make money by keeping costs down. To some extent, this is true, but more accurately, they make money by keeping costs down better than the competition does. There is no industry wide incentive to keep costs down. In fact, the incentive lies in the opposite direction. The more health care costs, the more people need insurance.
The value of any insurance is an assessment by an individual of the value of mitigating catastrophe. The bigger the cataastrophe, the more valuable mitigating it is.
If a stay in the hospital will cost me the equivalent of half a car, I might risk skipping insurance. If it will bankrupt me, I can’t risk it. This is why one of the largest groups of uninsured is healthy people without valuable assets. They can declare bankruptcy without losing a house or life savings.
The result is that an insurance company will bargain hard to get a good price on MRIs, but will accept a flimsy justification for when MRIs are necessary, provided that the justification is accepted industry wide. So, MRIs are 10% cheaper, but we wind up getting 40% too many.
The high administrative costs of insurance in the US are a significant problem, but they are not the most significant problem. The most significant problem with our insurance industry is that it is not capable of holding down the costs of health care.
The federal government can link acceptance of a public plan to acceptance of medicare. That gives even a small public plan clout.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Right wing conservative pro-life strong-defense libertarian-leaning voter here.
I would like to see Medicare, Social Security, the VA, the Department of Education, Drug Enforcement, and all cultural programs (NEA, NPR,etc.) discontinued.
The US Postal Service is “iffy” as well. Give the veterans generous vouchers to purchase private education and health insurance.
Let the government secure life, liberty and property. Do that well, and do nothing else. For the individual citizens – freedom to take care of the needy, voluntarily. Away from entitlements, and forward to real charity.
Progressivism is merely compulsion, disguised as compassion.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Medicare is run more efficiently than private health insurance.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“But I’m still trying to understand the difference between the “public option” and a hypothetical non-profit started by advocates of the public option.”
I don’t know, have you ever created a nationwide non-profit organization that serves all 50 states, negotiates 50 different sets of regulations, competes with entrenched profitable industries, and creates economies of scale that reduce costs to policy holders?
This is sort of like comparing the relative efficiency of the federal government and Santa Claus’s toy factory. Yes, the federal government has its share of problems with efficiency. But Santa Claus doesn’t freaking exist.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
So MKS, what do we do when our country performs so poorly that we can’t afford to defend life, liberty and property from foreign enemies anymore? As anyone who can read a map knows, progressive societies are wealthier and more powerful than non-progressive societies, but said societies are not above throwing their weight around for their own benefit.
You may be unhappy living under your own progressive government, do you think you’ll be happier living under someone else’s?
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Njorl,
Thanks for the polite response. I don’t think I’m ignorant of the health care system in general, just ignorant of the arguments for a public option. I thought this might be a good place to get pointed to the best arguments, but instead I’ve encountered a lot of rudeness. I don’t think the question of how a non-profit would perform relative to a public option is a “blind alley,” I think it is central. And I think we should all be able to agree that profit, non-profit, and government organizations ALL have serious incentive problems, although we might disagree which is worse in a given case.
The high administrative costs of insurance in the US are a significant problem, but they are not the most significant problem. The most significant problem with our insurance industry is that it is not capable of holding down the costs of health care.
That sounds right to me. I don’t understand how a public option addresses this problem.
The federal government can link acceptance of a public plan to acceptance of medicare. That gives even a small public plan clout.
Perhaps this is the big factor I’ve been missing? Not sure I understand how this would work. Could a non-profit do the same thing?
Once again, I’m trying to understand why setting up non-profits with appropriate charters wouldn’t be about the same as a non-subsidized “public option.”
(Full disclosure: I am in the Kaiser Permanente HMO in California, and it seems to me it would be better if the whole health care system followed that model. But we probably can’t get there from here.)
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
MKS sez:
“Let the government secure life, liberty and property. Do that well, and do nothing else. For the individual citizens – freedom to take care of the needy, voluntarily. Away from entitlements, and forward to real charity.”
I too believe that the government should secure “life, liberty and property,” especially that “life” part. That’s why I am a strong proponent of the notion that our government should guarantee access to quality health care for all Americans… not just the ones who can afford to purchase it.
ed sez:
“I’m still trying to understand the difference between the “public option” and a hypothetical non-profit started by advocates of the public option.”
Does your hypothetical non-profit have a national scope, with the power to bargain collectively (as a nationwide entity, tens-of-millions of patients strong) against health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers? And will its administrators’ salaries be no higher than those of public servants? And will it have negligible marketing expenditures?
‘Cause if so, then I (personally) would be fine with the non-profit that you’re talking about. However, the above is not what the Senate proponents of non-profit co-ops are describing.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Health insurance is accounting. The main competitive advantage for private insurance isn’t better accounting; it’s denial of claims for the unhealthy giving lower rates for the healthy. Basically, the health insurance market is intrinsically broken (many well-known academic papers on the topic), it’s not a normal market. It’s not building anything new or even providing better customer service. It’s accounts payable.
So, yes, health insurance is special. That’s well-known in economics.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Insurers are failing? I don’t think so. The top 5 averaged 1.5 billion in 2008, with United Health making close to 3 billion. They are doing JUST FINE.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Where, oh where, are the dirty pictures of Mary Landrieu and David Vitters? Their paths must have crossed, and the pictures of them together must exist.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“I don’t think the question of how a non-profit would perform relative to a public option is a “blind alley,” I think it is central. And I think we should all be able to agree that profit, non-profit, and government organizations ALL have serious incentive problems, although we might disagree which is worse in a given case.”
As stated above, Medicare has already proven itself to be more efficient than private insurers. The data is in and the debate is over ( http://tinyurl.com/25lhgs ).
And as to the federal government possibly linking acceptance of a public plan to the acceptance of medicare….
“Perhaps this is the big factor I’ve been missing? Not sure I understand how this would work. Could a non-profit do the same thing?
A private non-profit can *not* offer health care providers access to Medicare patients on the condition that those providers also extend care to members of its non-profit, because that private non-profit is, well, a private non-profit, and is *not* the federal government (i.e., your private non-profit would have no power to dictate which medical providers may treat Medicare patients… only the federal government has that power). Make sense?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Kaiser will do fine with the public option, by the way, since it’s primarily a provider. It might even gain market share. In San Francisco, Kaiser has signed up to be a provider for SF’s quasi-public option plan.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
the “public option” wouldn’t be a taxpayer-subsidized program
Really?! Do you have a bridge you’d like to sell me?
Let’s see, what other big, government run business is there? How about the USPS? Taxpayer-subsidized, with absurdly politicized pricing. The so-called public option will be no different.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I think ed at #9 has a point. The fear that people have is that the public option will be subsidized surreptiously. Even if it isn’t technically subsidized by taxes, it might, for example, put its administration in a federal building that is paid for by federal tax dollars or use federal offices free of charge (yes, you say,but they’re not imposing marginal costs because they’re not building new offices – well, unless the Federal Government is not building any new offices at all, any new office they build might have been unnecessary if they used the office space given to health administration.
Moreover, there’s alwyas the possibility that the public option will simply be allowed to borrow large amounts and to run continuous deficits, allowing it to undercut any private company that is not allowed to do that.
Most countries that reduce their health care costs do so by providing less. I’m not certain that this will work in the U.S., because I’m not certain that people will be willing to use less care, particularly if they are not charged for doing so. Certainly the failure of HMOs to control costs would indicate this.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Re Mary Landrieu’s comment ““I’m not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be.”
—————
Wasn’t it Mary’s corruption that led to her city being drowned? Because diversion of efforts to clearing channels for shipping interests resulted in substandard levees failing?
And when it came time to clean up her mess, did she have any objections then to ” a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan “???
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
This is actually pretty weak tea. I think ed is unduly skeptical about the quality of federal civil servants, but he kind of has a point — this really doesn’t differ much from a “random non-profit insurer” at all.
I thought the whole point of the PO was to create something that could leverage Medicare-style market share for lower prices. If this is all PO advocates want, couldn’t you achieve 100% of it while calling it a co-op or “federally qualified non-profit insurer”? “Seed capital” becomes discretionary grants, and the other elements either become direct regulation or conditions on the grant. Voila, now you can rely on votes from Landrieu, Conrad, etc…
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
@47 I’m a Postal worker for the USPS and I must tell you that the USPS is NOT TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED.
Furthermore it has not been subsidized by taxpayers since reorganization in the 1970’s. The USPS is a self-owning quasi-public corporation that is funded from its operating revenues.
Why not take a glance at the annual report for the USPS instead of just making stuff up.
USPS 2008 annual report
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
[...] I think things have gotten particularly out of hand. Today Louisiana Senator Mary Landreiu got a lot of attention for sharing her apprehension about a public option saying among other things: “I think if you [...]
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Glaivester,
I work in a federal laboratory. We pay rent to the federal government for the privelidge of using the building. That rent is included in our budget. Our payroll is handled by another federal government entity. We pay them to do this, and those payments are counted as part of our budget. Part of our costs go toward paying the IRS to collect taxes. The common stories about medicare not really being efficient because they get free offices and bill collection are false.
A public option would be housed in a building that they pay for, some of its budget would go to a payroll agency, and they would be “taxed” internally to pay for other costs, like their share of IRS expenses. They would have to pay for their own security, security checks on prospective employees and janitorial services. They would also have to pay for government mandated programs such as training for sexual harrassment awareness, drug and alcohol abuse awareness etc. They will still beat private industry, because the American health insurance industry is a preserve of indolent, bloated fauna who haven’t had to fight for survival in living memory.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 am
No. The government couldn’t play favorites with private companies, even if they’re non-profits. They can’t tell a hospital that they must accept some private entity’s plan or they don’t get medicare patients. If they can’t play favorites, the alternative is to attach all plans to medicare or attach no plans to medicare. If the government mandates that hospitals must accept all insurance plans if they want medicare patients, then the private plans swing the other way, and offer puny payment for services. Hospitals start refusing to take medicare patients.
The public option proposed is usually framed to offer slightly more generous reimbursement than medicare. It allows for robust mechanisms to ensure stiff bargaining, but doesn’t risk driving hospitals out of business.
BTW, I have Kaiser DC metro. It is the best health plan I’ve ever had. It pays doctors salaries instead of piece-work payments. It is a much better system.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 am
Landrieu’s argument, such as it is, is always on political terms, namely that a Democrat in Louisiana can’t stick her neck out too far, but maybe the REASON Democrats have problems in the South is they NEVER GODDAMN STAND UP FOR ANYTHING. “I made it so you NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH A HEATH INSURANCE CORPORATION AGAIN” is a better sell, in my opinion, than her opponent saying “zomg! Teh Gay!”
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 am
The Senator channels Groucho . . .
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Let’s see, what other big, government run business is there? How about the USPS? Taxpayer-subsidized, with absurdly politicized pricing. The so-called public option will be no different.
And, lo, the voice of ignorance brays in earnest!
Louisiana voter, by chance?
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
I’m afraid I’m with ed on this one. If a public option isn’t receiving special tax-subsidies, it’s going to face the same incentives that other non-profit insurers do, and will end up either behaving pretty much like them or go bankrupt (even if it does receive special tax-subsidies, it’s likely to face a tough road).
This isn’t just theoretical. Maine adopted a public option in 2003, and the results so far have been less than desirable.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
[...] Landrieu said she couldn’t vote for a taxpayer subsidized public option I pointed out that she seemed confused since nobody is proposing to create such an [...]
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
[...] Progress’ Matthew Yglesias reviews comments from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., (highlighed by the Washington Monthly’s [...]
October 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am
[...] Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) says, “I’m not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be.” [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
[...] a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be,” when in fact she is for all sorts of “government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plans.” It’s hard to say whether Landrieu is dumb or just inclined to mislead her constituents in [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
a big list of people that want america to fail and be a socialist nation you will find out later when you can only do what the dem government wants you to do and when they want it all the people above are fools and need to study history of what adolf tried to do to the world.enough said fools will win but will not survive as a free people only as a subject to their socialist government
October 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Please vote NO on public option for health care!