Introduction

I am circulating this plan at this late stage of the health care debate because most of the proposals out there are totally inadequate. This plan is a hybrid of government provided coverage, private insurance and regional and trade association co-ops (Not as public option replacements, but as an additional choice. I'd be very disappointed if the eventual health care bill doesn't include a public option and co-ops are inadequate alternatives).

I originally came up with this healthcare plan in 2005 and never formally put it to paper because I worked for someone who advocated single payer, which I believe is a worthy goal, but impossible in today's political and economic climate.

Plans without a public option are essentially worthless. They will inadequately extend the coverage safety net and will not put adequate competitive pressure on private insurance pricing.  read more »

This comes from MoveOn.org:

We Can't Afford to Wait Vigil

Columbus Circle, Columbus Circle
New York, NY 10023
Wednesday, September 2nd, 7:00 PM

Let's keep the momentum going!

Residents of all five boroughs of New York City are gathering to share their own experiences with the current health care system, and to urge Congress to enact real reform this year, which includes a public option.

I am missing Yvette Clarke's town hall meeting because I am working from home to try and finish some analysis for a grant deadline tomorrow. But I will try to make this rally on Wednesday. We need a good turnout to show our support for Healthcare reform.

Awhile back I reported something from Daily Kos which suggested that Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, someone I know and respect, was either uncommitted on or leaning against the Public Option for healthcare reform. In this she was being listed among many Blue Dog Democrats who are, in general, far more conservative than she is. By contrast Jerrold Nadler and Anthony Weiner have been leading the charge for healthcare reform. I wondered about this and wrote an appeal to her on Daily Gotham (with arguements quoted below). I also contacted Nydia's office to ask for clarification. I have gotten a response from a Velázquez spokesperson that suggests Congresswoman Velasquez has decided to side with Nadler and Weiner and not the Blue Dogs on the public option:

“Congresswoman Velázquez supports a public plan option. As the Chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a member of the Progressive Caucus, she has long advocated for reforms that will ensure all Americans have affordable health insurance coverage.”  read more »

Over at Daily Kos they have a round up of which Congressional reps are supporting, leaning towards supporting, or uncommitted/leaning against a strong public option for healthcare reform.

A Congresswoman I respect, Nydia Velazquez, is in the uncommitted/leaning against category. I would like to ask Nydia to please join her many colleagues in supporting a strong public option.

What does this mean?

From the Congressional Progressive Caucus (via the Daily Kos article):

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  read more »

Mayor Bloomberg wades into Federal waters with an op-ed in today's Daily News. Key grafs:

The principles that President Obama has outlined for national health care reform are driven by a goal that I share: universal access to affordable health care. Last week, I went to Washington to speak with members of Congress about an idea that can help make that goal a reality: a public health insurance option.

Today, most Americans get their health coverage from private insurers. A public health insurance option would create a competitor to private insurers that could potentially drive down costs across the board. I support the concept of a public plan, because if it's done right, it means introducing exactly the kind of competition our system needs.

Snip, snip.

A public option would be particularly beneficial to areas where just a few insurance companies control most of the market. This is especially true of cities. According to the American Medical Association, 94% of metropolitan areas in the United States are dominated by one company or a small group of companies. This kind of anti-competitive concentration protects private insurers from ever having to feel the urgency to provide more for less. When you don't have to find ways to cut costs and produce a better product, you tend not to do it. The public option offers the opportunity to force the system to innovate, evolve and improve.

It's very Bloombergian to make this argument by pointing out cost and efficiency benefits. It's also worth thinking about the potential financial benefits to the City from a Federal solution to the healthcare crisis; a report from January by the Citizens Budget Commission attributes rising City personnel costs in part to the increasing cost of healthcare for the City's 280,000 employees.

Nice going, Mr. Mayor. It's appreciated.  read more »