The present health reform bill would sail right through the House
of Representatives right now if it had a "robust" Public Option provision
that would guarantee "true" competition and price protection
for millions of our "uninsured" American Citizens. These same citizens will soon be
"mandated" to buy Health Insurance, no matter the cost.
Many of these potential uninsured Americans are now in a healthy age group who may not require any health services for many years to come, but who will soon be mandated by law to purchase insurance. It is therefore essential for all of the "uninsured" and also those who are now insured in this Nation to receive the lowest possible prices in regard to their monthly insurance premium rates that they may purchase for now or in the future.
Many of these potential uninsured Americans are now in a healthy age group who may not require any health services for many years to come, but who will soon be mandated by law to purchase insurance. It is therefore essential for all of the "uninsured" and also those who are now insured in this Nation to receive the lowest possible prices in regard to their monthly insurance premium rates that they may purchase for now or in the future.
On Thursday March 3, 2010, the President announced his final decision
in regard to the pending Health Bill provisions now before the U.S.
Congress, but unfortunately there was no Public Option Plan of any
kind. This
was a resounding disappointment not only for the millions of the
Public Option supporters, but also for the
Democratic Party, that could spell disaster for the Democratic
Congressional Candidates. The President also
announced his support on Health Care choices at his news briefing
for the American People, but to the disappointment of many, the Public
Option "choice" that 60% of our American Citizen's want, was not
among these choices.
It is also regrettable that American Public Option
Supporters were told by their elected officials in the past that they would have
a "choice" in regard to any new health plan that they might
desire during the 2008 election, but are now being denied their Single Payer, or
Medicare for All, public option "choice" preferences.
In addition, it is also ironic that our present Democratic President has now confirmed that he will be accepting Republican "choices" in the present Healthcare Bill instead.Â
The public option supporters were also told by Democratic Congressional Leaders recently that if the Public Option provision was not in the final bill that it could be voted upon at some later date. This sounds promissing, but if the Democrats should lose control of both houses of Congress, public option will be officially dead. The best way to resolve this Public Option debate would be for the Senate to pass a robust Single Payer, or Medicare for All Public Option, provision plan into the present health reform bill -- and then vote this plan into law by utilizing the reconciliation 51 vote majority rule. By using reconciliation, the Republicans cannot stonewall and this will unify the entire Democratic Party for now and the future.
In addition, it is also ironic that our present Democratic President has now confirmed that he will be accepting Republican "choices" in the present Healthcare Bill instead.Â
The public option supporters were also told by Democratic Congressional Leaders recently that if the Public Option provision was not in the final bill that it could be voted upon at some later date. This sounds promissing, but if the Democrats should lose control of both houses of Congress, public option will be officially dead. The best way to resolve this Public Option debate would be for the Senate to pass a robust Single Payer, or Medicare for All Public Option, provision plan into the present health reform bill -- and then vote this plan into law by utilizing the reconciliation 51 vote majority rule. By using reconciliation, the Republicans cannot stonewall and this will unify the entire Democratic Party for now and the future.
The February 25, 2010 so-called
bipartisan Health Summit revealed that there would
be at least "one" State Health Insurance Exchange that
would be made available to the public as a "non-profit" health
insurance source that might provide lower insurance rates as a
means to promote competition in the health insurance marketplace. This
State Health Insurance Exchange provision sounds great, but what the Health
Debate Panel failed to reveal to the American Public was that this "non-profit" insurance exchange is already established in this
nation as a Health Insurance "CO-OP" that has been operating for at least the past fifty years. Yet, this exchange has failed to
produce competition or contain the monthly insurance premium costs charged by the for-profit health insurance companies.
In addition, the Health Debate Panel also did not tell the American People that these private "non-profit" CO-OP'S are presently doing business in only five States -- and that a majority of these private CO-OP health insurance groups are primarily located within small "rural communities" where health insurance competition is practically nonexistent. In addition, it would take many years and many dollars to expand these proposed "non-profit" CO-OP'S into each of the 50 States, and in the interim it would cost U.S. taxpayers more money and would also increase our present national debt in order to accomplish this task. In contrast to this Co-Op approach, the U.S. "medicare system" today is ready to go and will rapidly provide competition, as well as rate reductions, while protecting our lives.
In addition, the Health Debate Panel also did not tell the American People that these private "non-profit" CO-OP'S are presently doing business in only five States -- and that a majority of these private CO-OP health insurance groups are primarily located within small "rural communities" where health insurance competition is practically nonexistent. In addition, it would take many years and many dollars to expand these proposed "non-profit" CO-OP'S into each of the 50 States, and in the interim it would cost U.S. taxpayers more money and would also increase our present national debt in order to accomplish this task. In contrast to this Co-Op approach, the U.S. "medicare system" today is ready to go and will rapidly provide competition, as well as rate reductions, while protecting our lives.
Since we are now on the topic of competition and fairness, please consider
this: The private or otherwise defined CO-OP Health Insurance State
Exchange provision that the President now supports within the present
Healthcare Bill provisions will not
adequately provide "robust" competition or insurance price protection. In fact, this private CO-OP insurance State
Exchange Commission is only designed to "monitor" insurance rates for
public information purposes but does not possess the authority to
enforce reductions. It is curious that no public
official has come forward to fully explain the mechanism
on how insurance rate increases will be contained or enforced, and to what extent, if any, the penalties will be in regard
to any insurance company who may continue to price-gouge the American
Public.
I also cannot understand how any State Insurance Exchange Commission would monitor any rate increases due to the fact that if one NATIONWIDE insurance firm increased their existing rates, any of the other competing
insurance business firms - which number in the
thousands - will simultaneously do the same, making it very difficult to pinpoint who the
"original" violator was. This type of a marketing and
pricing maneuver has been done by many corporations in the past; the most famous of them is the oil
industry. It is therefore the assumption of the American People that
the only way to provide credible competition and also
control Health Costs in the future is through
"direct" competition within the health insurance marketplace in the form
of the "Medicare for All" Public Option Plan or through mandated and
meaningful price controls that will provide a prison sentence in addition
to violation fines.
Many of our citizens are now advocating that, if the
Government should possess the authority to MANDATE that anyone should be required to purchase health insurance within the retail market
place--then our Government should also have the
authority to mandate pricing. The American People also believe that the
insurance marketplace should not be in
favor of the business sector only in regards to healthcare, since this is an
absolute "necessity" for the American People.
In essence, it boils down to this: If our U.S. Government can control or regulate individual expenditures, then they should also have the authority to control the income of big business.
In essence, it boils down to this: If our U.S. Government can control or regulate individual expenditures, then they should also have the authority to control the income of big business.
It is also inconceivable that there is such a thing as having too much competition in the market-place. The Healthcare of our American People is a necessity that should have top priority within the healthcare marketplace.
