THE HILL
 

Why we're breaking with the Blue Dogs on the public option (Rep. Jane Harman and Rep. Loretta Sanchez)

By Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) - 10/13/09 12:51 PM ET

Throughout the congressional health care debate, considerable attention has focused on the Blue Dog Coalition - a group of House Democrats committed to fiscal responsibility and budget discipline.

We're Blue Dogs, too, and we believe in the group's core principles. But we've broken with our Blue Dog sisters and brothers over their lukewarm support for the public insurance option a concept we think must be part of a successful health care reform package.

Far from being an option of last resort or a government-funded takeover of the country's health care system, we see the public option as a critical market mechanism that will drive down costs, foster competition and expand Americans' insurance choices.

This is not just smart health care policy, it is smart economic policy.


A Gallup-Healthways survey has identified more than 290,000 uninsured people in our congressional districts alone. This is astonishing, and, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, their medical care cost local hospitals and other health care providers $65 million last year.

How can providers stay afloat in the face of such expenditures? By charging people who have insurance more. A recent study by the Center for American Progress found that more than 10 percent of the average Californian's premiums, approximately $500 each year, goes to covering the cost of caring for the uninsured.

Expanding coverage will greatly reduce the costs of uncompensated care and alleviate a major drag on the state and national economies. A public option is necessary to reach that goal.

If private insurers were already providing affordable coverage, there would be no need for this debate. But they are not. In fact, the profit motive has routinely trumped a customer's health and well-being. They set premiums at artificially high rates to compensate for the costs of the uninsured, drop people from their plans when they become sick, or use fine print to deny expensive but medically necessary treatments.

We understand the fear of many insured Californians that health care reform will take away their current doctors and coverage. However, the grim reality is that many more insured people will lose their coverage without reform.

In August it happened to Rep. Harman's 27-year-old son, who was dropped from his insurance after suffering a torn eardrum.

He's not alone. According to a recent report by the Treasury Department, without health care reform, nearly half of all Americans under 65 will lose their coverage at some point over the next 10 years. Additionally, health care spending in the United States will go from $1 out of every $6 spent to $1 of every $5 in the next decade.

Ultimately, our country and our constituents can't afford to wait for health care reform. Doing nothing means Californians will pay twice as much in premiums and out-of-pocket costs in the coming years and insurance companies will still call the shots, denying care to people with pre-existing conditions and walking away from families that need coverage the most.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 97 percent of all Americans would have insurance coverage if legislation that includes a public option becomes law. If this benchmark is reached, in our districts, more than 250,000 additional people would be able to count on quality, affordable health care coverage. Whether people choose a private insurer or the public option, all could count on a guaranteed standard and comprehensive set of benefits to ensure access to quality, affordable health care.

The health care debate in Congress will continue through the end of the year. The recent Senate Finance Committee defeat of two amendments to include a public insurance option in its health care reform bill is a disappointing setback.

Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that at the end of its process, Congress will have succeeded in passing a fiscally responsible health care bill that includes a robust public option.

This is our best bet to ensure Californians have access to quality, affordable health care without burdening future generations.

Cross-posted from an Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/62819-why-were-breaking-with-the-blue-dogs-on-the-public-option-rep-jane-harman-and-rep-loretta-sanchez

Comments (25)

I foresee a terrible loss in Republicans and Blue Dogs in 2010. Good riddance of bad rubbish.BY todd on 10/13/2009 at 15:05
There are many of us here in your district who will not forget your words in November 2010, Ms. Harman…BY BeeVee on 10/13/2009 at 16:32
About time! The final bill coming out of conference better have a solid and widely available public option. It is time for these BC/BS Democrats to abandon their corporate "sponsors" and start representing those 62% of us who demand the public option! That includes my own Rep, Heath Shuler, D-NC11 who is but a Republican in a cheap Democratic suit.BY Greg Williams on 10/13/2009 at 17:23
Run this story: Government enables 100% of Americans access to direct primary healthcare without spending a dime! Individuals to only pay $50 per month. Encourage, the direct patient care model with "$25,000 loan guarantees" for every interested Primary Care Physician. The solutions are out there. Share and promote this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/health/07health.html?src=tpBY Carlos Tobin on 10/13/2009 at 17:37
I challenge EVERY Blue Dog Democrat to explain what social benefit the for-profit health insurance industry provides.It can't be done. The for-profit health insurance industry exists for one reason, and one reason only. To skim 20% off the top of my health care premiums before passing the money on to my doctor.BY Krashkopf on 10/13/2009 at 18:04
No public option, no more votes for Democrats from this family.We'll become third party "protest voters" … something, given our limited system of governance, I have always counseled against. But enough is enough.BY Pat Tully Jr. on 10/13/2009 at 18:54
Without the Public Option the bill will make us a captive audience to the insurance industry. The entire tone of the Baucus bill is mean. Penalties if you don't buy a policy. Penalties if you don't have a policy deemed appropriate. No price controls. It didn't surprise me when the report came out yesterday and the Insurance Industry's lobbyist Ms. Ipagnani(unsure of spelling) stuck by the need to raise premiums.We don't need them. I can tell you from experience that Medicaid wasn't all that bad. I had it for 2 months until I got my current job. I didn't have a long wait to see the doctor, just 4 days. A week later I had my mammogram and a follow-up visit.Medicaid would not cover my cystic acne because that was deemed a cosmetic treatment. I wasn't pleased about that but I just stopped complaining and paid out of pocket.BY katiemasonstevens on 10/13/2009 at 20:09
The health care debate keeps hammering on how urgent this health care program is, and yet it won't take effect until 2013! How urgent is that??No, they want to push it through before any of them have time to read it again…another 1000 pages of incomprehensibl e language to give government more control, and they have to do it while the Democrats still are in power to pass bills without bipartisan support. There won't be the same political climate after November 2010.BY Lana White on 10/13/2009 at 21:20
A strong public option is the only thing that will save us from the insurance corporations' death panels! Seriously.BY Alan8 on 10/13/2009 at 22:08
Without a public option, there is no health care reform. There would be no restrain in the profit-motivated insurance companies. In the current Finance Committee bill, there still is little if any curb on them, yet we will all be forced to buy their product or face hefty fines. I will not vote for any candidate who does not support a public option, and neither will a growing number of my friends and family members. Enough is enough.BY Lmaris on 10/13/2009 at 22:11

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.