Health Care

Chuck Schumer's Public-Private "Public Option"

Published April 04, 2009 @ 07:05PM PT

According to an article on LoHud.com, New York Senator Chuck Schumer has been designated the point-person on the Senate Finance Committee for making sure the public option – a government-administered plan that would directly compete with private insurance – is part of the health reform bill in the Senate.  Normally this would be a good thing – Schumer has a sterling reputation for getting his legislation through, no matter the obstacles.  But he’s already suggesting that he may be willing to compromise by redefining the public option so it’s not public at all.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m normally a member of the Chuck Schumer Appreciation Society (there’s even a group on Facebook).  Indeed, in the article on LoHud quotes Schumer as saying, “"If competition works, why not have a public entity?”  Still, the public option is shaping up as one of the major fault lines in the Senate, but it’s also somewhat ambiguous.  Although Jacob Hacker and others have described the how and why of how a public option is essential to changing the game of coverage and necessary for market-based cost control, the president himself has always been somewhat ambiguous about how the program should work.  Indeed, while John Edwards and Hillary Clinton would never say the words “public plan” without immediately saying, “similar to Medicare” and explaining that it would function like a Medicare you’d pay subsidized premiums for, Obama never quite defined what he meant during the campaign.  With so many conservatives crying foul, that it was unfair to private insurance companies (by the way, I thought the goal was to extend coverage, lower costs and save lives, not avoid hurting the feelings of some very rich CEOS) and the usual malarkey about socialized medicine, it looks like a tough fight.

But it’s a fight worth having – it’s not a fight worth skirting through re-definition.  Schumer made some waves about musing aloud to Kathleen Sebelius during her confirmation hearing about the idea of a “public option” that would actually more resemble the benefits plans offered at the state-level to State Employees.  Indeed, Sebelius seemed somewhat open to the idea, since Kansas has it’s own Kansas Health Policy Authority which Sebelius herself pushed through four years ago.  All of the state’s public health programs, government health programs (including Medicaid and SCHIP), and the benefits plans for all state employees are under the authority, and employees get to choose which plan they want from a menu of options, with good transparency in the documentation on which plan covers you for what at what costs.

All that’s great – it’s similar to the National Health Exchange that is the other part of Obama’s plan to cover the uninsured – but it’s explicitly not a public option.  Just because the government is in the role of the employer in dealing with private insurance doesn’t meant the government is running it.  At best, the state government is using its buying power to negotiate a better deal with a minimum standard package – also a good idea, but it’s just not anything resembling the public plan.

Schumer’s musings about the possibility of a public plan that follows the model of state employee benefits seems to be missing the point entirely.  Forcing everyone into the private insurance options doesn’t do anything to force them to become more competitive, lower costs, or provide better quality.  Administrative costs will remain the same.  A business that relies to a certain extent on finding reasons not to pay for care will remain in place.  At the most, we won’t allow the worst offenders to participate, but you still don’t have a “public plan” – just a public market for private insurance.  And a plan that's public-private is still, at its core, private insurance only

Let’s hope these are just musings.  This isn’t reform – it’s changing the name for the system we have already and finding a way to get everyone into it.

(Photo credit:  psilver on Flickr.)

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (4)

  1. Martin Bring

    The House passed the Stimulus Bill with NO Republican support. The House passed Obama's Budget with NO Republican support.

    Is there any particular reason Dems need to compromise with Republicans on health care reform?

    Posted by Martin Bring on 04/04/2009 @ 08:08PM PT

  2. Reply to thread
  3. NYC Weboy

    I don't think the question is about "what Republicans want" - Schumer's way too politically attuned to care what the GOP wants... he'd love to concoct something perfectly opposable, and use it against them in the 2010 elections; no, I think what's really happening is that Schumer's showing how much information has yet to be exchanged on the issues involved, and why it matters. I've never had the sense of Schumer as a "go to" guy on health issues, for all his liberal cred (and really, I think he likes attention more than being ideological), and I suspect his musings reflect a lack of in-depth examination as much as anything.

    The plan Schumer's proposed sounds like the "access to federal employee insurers" that's been floating for years as a way to broaden access to isurance; it always sounds attractive... but I get the impression insurers don't like it because it's a backdoor way to getting sicker populations (people unable to work due to a condition, or the disabled) under the subsidies the government gets. Tim's right, though... the other thing is, it's not a "public plan" as has been proposed elsewhere, where the government basically serves as the insurer, and the reimbursement provider. The "insurance subsidizer" role makes government more of a clearinghouse than a payment provider.

    Now, as a Finance guy, Schumer may be signaling a couple of things - one is that he's admiting what few want to... that the government can't afford to step in and cover even more people, when it already has huge cost problems covering Medicare... and less likelihood of providing appropriate levels of Medicaid funding to states (and given Obama's recent VA trial balloon of shifting them to insurers... isn't there a VA funding problem as well?). As well, Schumer may be making a valid point about government-as-insurer: if the government's own employees can be insured through private companies... why can't everyone else? In other words... why doesn't a "public plan" mean "public employees" would be in it?

    Those are just guesses; I suspect the bottom line is that Schumer's musings don't amount to more than musings... just as so much of what's floating right now about healthcare reform is less solid than we think; we need more conrete details... more insight ino how people are arriving at hese conclusions, and actual preparation of the public to understand what's happening and why. And I think Schumer's colleagues and progressive groups are bound to try and influence his thinking between now and an actual plan ... whether Schumer will change his mind (and whether this proposal reflects lobbying by finance and insurer interests)... I'm less sure.

    Posted by NYC Weboy on 04/04/2009 @ 10:04PM PT

  4. Martin Bring

    If Republicans have to choose between:

    A. Letting 20-30 thousand Americans die and thousands more going bankrupt every year because of our crappy health care system.

    Or

    B. Getting rid of the health insurance companies.

    Republicans will choose A.

    They have a fetish about competition -- Never mind that private health insurance companies will avoid competing with each other based on lower premiums, but will instead use their oligopolies to push premiums up to the maximum that the market will bear.

    Obama's Plan in a Nut Shell:

    Partially reduces number of uninsured with $100 billion in new public funding
     
    Requires some employers to provide insurance or pay into a public insurance program, i.e. "play or pay"

    No effective cost-containment

    Mandates that all children be insured
    Expands Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program

    Sets up public insurance program as alternative to private insurers

    Sets up "National Health Insurance Exchange" through which insurers could not deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions with tax subsidies to low-income

    Provides government reinsurance to employers for handling catastrophic illness or injury


    It's likely that the public plan will be impacted by adverse selection - i.e. that individuals who are sick, or small businesses who have workers with costly disorders such as diabetes or cancer, will tend to seek out the public plans because the private plans would likely withdraw from markets that include high-cost individuals - markets in which they would be losing money. These individuals and small businesses will end up in relatively high-risk pools. It is essential those pools be adequately funded.

    To fund the public high risk pools, either the private insurance companies would have to shift some of their funds into the public program through risk adjustment, or, as the public program uses up its funds, the government would have to make a greater contribution. To compete with the private plans, the public program and private plans would have to be funded at the same levels accurately corrected for the level of risk in their pools.   That's not technically feasible.  Nobody has a way to do that.  So insurers are always able to game the system.


    Sen. Obama has said that, if starting from scratch, we would create a single payer system. 

    -- That's the health reform proposal that Americans should choose if we're really serious about including absolutely everyone in an affordable program.



    Posted by Martin Bring on 04/05/2009 @ 09:08AM PT

  5. Reply to thread
  6. Dustin Ogdin

    Schumer's motivation is purely self-serving, corporate pandering.  Here's my take:
    http://www.dirtsweatsoul.com/2009/05/chuck-schumers-magic-healthcare-tonic.html

    Posted by Dustin Ogdin on 05/10/2009 @ 09:35AM PT

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Timothy Foley

Tim has been an online organizer and blogger on health care policy for the Obama for America campaign (during the primaries) and currently for the Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, a labor union for intern and resident doctors. Views expressed here are Tim's, and don't represent the positions of CIR or SEIU.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.