Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer -- No Need for "Bi Partisan" Health Care Bill
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 05:17:12 EDT
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Fixing Health Care Does Not Require a “Bi-Partisan”  Bill.  It Does 
Require a Public  Health Insurance Option. 
The private insurance industry and its spokespeople in Congress are  
frantically making the argument, that for health care reform to last and have  the 
support of the American people Congress must pass a “bi-partisan” health  
care reform plan. 
Of course you never heard a word about “bi-partisanship” from the  
insurance industry or Republicans when they passed the notorious “Medicare Part  D”
 prescription drug plan in 2003.  Back then, they froze Democrats out of 
all negotiations, and passed the  bill on a 220 to 215 vote in the House (with 
only 16 Democrats voting yes).  In fact, Medicare Part D would be their  
idea of a “good” health care “reform”:  taxpayer subsidies for private 
insurers  with no competition from a public plan.  And if we went that route, the 
results of health care reform would look  pretty much like the results of 
Part D as well – no cost control, giant gaps in  coverage, and confusing 
options for consumers.   
Now that the political tide has turned, and last year’s economic collapse  
has given voters a fresh lesson in the consequences of turning public policy 
 over to corporate CEO’s and insurance giants like AIG, the Republicans and 
 insurance companies have had an eleventh-hour conversion to the benefits 
of  “bipartisanship” when it comes to health care reform. 
It’s no surprise then that in the  current debate, the advocates of this 
position have made it clear that, to them,  “bi-partisanship” means one 
thing: Americans should be denied the choice of a  public health insurance option 
like Medicare.  Their problem is that while a public  health insurance 
option may not have bi-partisan support in Congress – it has  big time 
bi-partisan support among the voters. 
In fact, of course, it won’t matter one whit to average Americans whether  
the bill passed by Congress is “bi-partisan.”  What will matter is  that: 
·       Something gets  passed. 
·       It provides health care  for everyone. 
·       It puts the  brakes on skyrocketing health care costs.   
In the current context, there is no way to provide these things without  
also providing us with the choice of a public health insurance plan that would 
 compete with private insurance companies, and keep them honest.  
Average Americans know that they have been at the mercy of private health  
insurers for too long.  After the  health care mess that they have created, 
insurance companies can hardly  expect everyday voters would be real keen 
about handing them the exclusive  right to provide health insurance to 
everyone in America  who is ineligible for Medicare, Medicaid or Veteran’s  
benefits. 
A poll conducted earlier this year by the highly respected Lake Research  
Partners found that  voters overwhelmingly want everyone to have a choice of  
private health insurance or a public health insurance plan (73%), while 
just 15% prefer everyone having private  health insurance.  
And the preference for  a choice between public and private health 
insurance plans extends across all  demographic and partisan groups, including 
Democrats (77%), Independents (79%)  and Republicans (63%). So in fact,  
President Obama’s proposal that creates a choice of a public health insurance  
option is a bi-partisan plan – whether is has “bi-partisan” support in  Congress 
or not.      
Because of the budget rules passed by Congress, Obama doesn’t actually  
need any Republicans to pass a health care reform bill.  The rules allow 
passage without a  filibuster, by a simple majority – which in the Senate means 50 
votes and a  Vice-Presidential tie breaker.  That  would allow passage of a 
truly effective health care reform plan even while  losing all Republicans 
and 10 Democratic Senators.   
Of course in this political environment that won’t happen.  They may squeal 
on their way to the  vote, but in the end most Democrats and some 
Republicans will almost certainly  feel the heat of public opinion and vote for 
health care reform when the chips  are down.  
The President’s principles – which were outlined in a letter to the  
Senate last week – have broad support among most Democrats in both houses,  
notwithstanding adamant insurance industry opposition to a public health  
insurance plan.    
The few isolated Democratic opponents in both Houses have never advanced  
solid policy arguments in opposition to giving Americans the choice of a 
public  health insurance plan. The closest they’ve come is a frail argument that 
many  private insurers couldn’t compete.  That line of argument ignores two 
facts: 
·       The point of health  reform is to provide health care to all 
Americans, and to cut costs – not to  benefit wasteful, inefficient private 
insurance companies that have become fat  by gouging consumers and denying claims. 
 
·       If private insurers  can’t compete with an efficient public health 
insurance plan, they have no  business being in the market place.  After 
all, they would be the first to argue that the “private sector” is  always 
more “efficient” than government.  
What they’re really worried about is that in order to compete they would  
have to cut massive CEO salaries like the $26 million Cigna paid last year to 
 its CEO – a figure that is 65 times higher than the salary paid to the CEO 
of  the Federal Government – President Obama. Insurance companies are 
worried that  they would have to become more efficient and cut their profit 
margins in order  to compete.  Of course from the  point of view of the taxpayer, 
that is one of the major goals of health care  reform: to control 
skyrocketing costs and incentivize efficiency instead of  waste.   
The other argument advanced by the few Democrats who oppose a public  
health insurance option is the fallacious notion that it is not popular in their  
districts.  In fact, Republicans and  Independent voters are almost as sick 
of being at the mercy of private insurance  companies as Democrats.  The 
idea of  providing consumers with a choice of a public health insurance option 
is popular  in Arkansas and Kansas – as it’s popular in Illinois and New  
York. It’s popular in rural areas and urban  areas. 
The Obama plan for health care reform has massive bi-partisan support  
throughout the United  States.  Let’s get busy making sure that it becomes the 
law of the land whether  the insurance companies and the Republicans in 
Congress support it or  not. 
Robert Creamer is a long-time  political organizer and strategist, and 
author of the recent book: “Stand Up  Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” 
available on _amazon.com_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206567141&sr=8-1
) . 

**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your 
fingertips. 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---