MUST READ: "Third Way" on Public Option: Make One that Can't Work

[Joanne98]

by mcjoan

Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:40:05 AM PDT

The "progressives" at Third Way, that moderate public policy think thank tank that apparently exists to make the DLC look like regular liberal firebrands, turned their hyper-incrementalist bullshit domestic policy sites on something that matters: the public option in the health care reform package.

This leaked draft of their upcoming policy paper shows that they're not even going for a hyper-incrementalist watering down of the public option--they're trying to kill it. Here's their premise:

Whether health care reform should include a "public plan" is an issue that now threatens to fracture the emerging consensus on health reform. If left unresolved, the debate over a public plan could derail the broader reform agenda while other pressing issues central to reform are put on hold.

The proponents of a public plan seek the right goals—to broaden access and lower costs. But there is a very real danger that an overly intrusive public plan can ultimately undermine these very goals and destabilize the private-sector coverage that middle-class Americans—i.e., Harry and Louise—depend on and are largely satisfied with.

They actually invoke Harry and Louise again, which is fitting, since Harry and Louise were a creation of the insurance industry, much like this plan seems to be. In the event that Third Way forgot, "proponents" of the public option include President Obama, one of the key Senate leaders on the issue, and the largest voting bloc in the House of Representatives. It's not a fringe group of DFHers who want a solid public option. It's the consensus of the majority of Democrats. And the President.

Nonetheless, Third Way seems committed to doing the dirty work of the insurance lobby from the "left." Here's the plan's four basic elements:

•An explicit rejection of price controls and rate-setting on medical services and products;
•A level playing field that preserves and enhances a vibrant and robust private insurance industry with market-based competition;
•An assurance of stable coverage for the middle class, meaning that reform will not force people to change plans; and
•Mechanisms to ensure private-sector cost-containment, in conjunction with the health care industry’s pledge to achieve the $2 trillion in savings over ten years


Those four elements are spelled out in the "key policy proposals" they will presumably put forward:

•Explicit rejection of price controls and rate-setting
•A level playing field on taxes, regulations and administration
•Limited participation to certain market segments (e.g. small group and individual)
•Required supermajority approval for federal bailout of the public plan (in addition to self-financing)
•Automatic sunset after four years unless the plan can demonstrate solid financial performance and positive impacts on market stability
•Mandatory accreditation or evaluation of providers, plans and other stakeholders to ensure private sector cost containment if targets are not met


To clarify, this means the public option wouldn't be "public" as much as limited to those small businesses and the uninsured, or "market segments" that are geographical. It would "firmly and explicitly reject Medicare-style price controls and rate-setting," and not be allowed to to negotiate with drug companies or hospitals or doctors at all for prices (in the name of "innovation"). Should the plan require a emergency federal funding, it would have the barrier of obtaining a supermajority of Congressional approval.

It gets better. They propose that actually administration of what they are calling their "hybrid" should be contracted out to private industry. Finally, they want their plan to have a "reverse trigger," to sunset after just four years should it not prove effective, because "Harry and Louise must feel confident in knowing not just that their employers won’t be dropping their existing coverage in favor of the public plan." As if restrictions can't be placed on employers to prevent them from dropping Harry and Louise? Given all the the restrictions they want placed on it, what do you think the chances of that success might be? What's more, four years is a ridiculously short amount of time for an evaluation period. Every analyst worth her salt is estimating a decade for reform plans to prove their worth.

Then they have the gall to conclude with this:

Progressives who believe in both the power of markets and of government to work together in bettering the lives of the middle-class should embrace the notion of a hybrid plan that can energize and enhance the current market.

Where they got the idea that they speak for "progressives" on this issue is beyond me. This morning, DemFromCT laid out all of the reasons we should be putting our weight behind a solid, trigger-free public opton. Job one is killing this Third Way "hybrid" before it gets beyond the draft stage

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/8/740037/-Third-Way-on-Public-Option:-Make-One-that-Cant-Work

[xchrom]

1. and this is EXACTLY where i think our health care 'reform' is heading.

the reps, the oval office, and the senate with the corporate writers of legislation are crafting an over all mess.

and probably on purpose.

[Cant trust em]

2. No public policy this big is going to be proven successful after four years

Ridiculous.

[Oregone]

3. This is silly

"Progressives who believe in both the power of markets and of government to work together in bettering the lives of the middle-class should embrace the notion of a hybrid plan that can energize and enhance the current market."

Come on now, insurance isn't rocket science--there is no further innovation needed to enhance the "industry" of insurance. Competition of unethical profit-based companies cannot improve their product, and most certainly cannot beat a single non-profit entity acting in the interests of the people. People need to understand that capitalism is not about producing the best product at the best price through competition; rather, capitalism is about producing the most profits for shareholders, which can often be done with inferior products with unaffordable prices. The only result from market mechanisms in the insurance industry is simply products that produce the most profits (rather than benefit the most people).

There is NOTHING to be gained from capitalistic competition and choice in the insurance industry. It wont produce Vista 64 bit insurance, or the iPOD Nano coverage at $5 bucks a month. The ONLY innovation is the constant testing of price points and coverage that will ensure maximum profits, period. It is silly to think that capitalism in the insurance industry is the best way to benefit the people (or even a good way).

[Cleita]

4. If they win, then we need to form our own insurance company to compete

and preferably undercut them. Really, I've been thinking about this. There's government grant money out there for women to start their own businesses that doesn't have to be paid back. If a dozen of us got together and pooled our grant money, we could form a non-profit insurance company. We would offer comprehensive health insurance, no deductibles and no co-pays, but make a point of keeping our administrative costs under 3%. We wouldn't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or raise premiums. We would offer group policies to unions and businesses at first. This is a lower risk pool for a startup. We would of course offer our policies for less than the other insurers undercutting them, which is my intent. Once we get the ball rolling as a non-profit we can solicit donations to cover high risk patients and those who can't afford to buy insurance. Eventually, my goal is to cover everyone and drive all the other insurers out of business. Then maybe we can get the government to take over the reins. Of course, I'm thinking of all the dirty tricks the industry could pull like getting their bought and paid for senators to pass laws keeping us from undercutting them free market style. Well, I can dream can't I?

[Dragonfli]

9. It is a good thought, I hope it doesn't come to that

If it does, you may count on me to help - although just as you've admitted, I am also doubtful the "Big Boys" will allow it to exist, they will use the same legislature they have already purchased as well as every dirty trick in the book to stop it.

It is good to have thoughts and to dream, to quote part of a poem I wrote many years ago:

"...all of us are artists and poets when we see
That all we've built began as seeds from dreams of what could be.."

[Why Syzygy]

5. WTF? +4

Progressives who believe in both the power of markets and of government to work together in bettering the lives of the middle-class should embrace the notion of a hybrid plan that can energize and enhance the current market.

Whoever said we believe in the MARKET? We need REFORM because the MARKET sucks!

sheesh What is it going to take to get them to represent US?

[derby378]

6. Third Way already failed on gun control back in 2004

During the Kerry campaign, Third Way encouraged Democrats to repackage Brady-style gun control as "a right with responsibilities." Not many Democratic victories to speak of in 2004.

That started to change in 2006, when most Democrats backed away from gun talk during the mid-terms and some new pro-RKBA Dems wound up in the House and Senate. The process repeated itself in 2008.

Third Way goofed on this issue big time.

[Wednesdays]

7. K&R

:kick:

[Dragonfli]

8. The false flag operation continues I see

For those to whom it is not apparent (as evidenced yet again by this "piece of work")

These people are not progressive, they are not even Democrats (except in the way Arlen Spector is - to get elected).

We have to consider them the same way we do the others like themselves that have destroyed our nation (other less ashamed Republicans) and treat them as such.

Vote them out and vote in Democrats!
With the stealth republicans added, the GOP still has the majority, please don't let the false flag fool you! Without a Democratic majority in more than name only, NOTHING WILL CHANGE for the better.