With Senate Majority Leader Reid's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act heading toward a senate floor debate, the near constant bickering over the public option may come to a deafening roar as the democratic caucus struggles to unite and as many conservatives continue loudly vocalizing their fears over a government-run public option.

Most conservatives believe that creating a government-run public option would lead to a federal takeover of our health care system, however a new Congressional Budget Office analysis suggests that Reid's version of the public plan would have a relatively small impact on the current system and would charge higher premiums than its private competitors and potentially draw only roughly 4 million participants.

The CBO analysis continues to explain that the public plan would most likely charge higher premiums because federal health officials will be unlikely to match the shrewed tactics used by private firms to keep costs down. Thus the public plan would attract some of the most sick and costly health care patients and potentially only 1:8 of Americans would participate. Also, legislation strictly limits participation to people who do not have access to affordable insurance through an employer, or those who work for small business and are eligible to participate in new state-run insurance exchanges that include the public plan alongside private insurance policies. This key distinction aims at specifically quieting concerns that a public option would stifle competition and quickly evolve into a government take over of our health care system, but many moderate democrats and the majority of Republicans still find significant fault with it.

Senator Olympia Snowe concerns revolve around the financial burden a public option could potentially place on small businesses whose workers would receive federal subsidies to buy insurance. She advocates for a compromise that would take a trigger approach, making the public option available only in states where private firms do enough to develop broadly affordable health insurance policies for patients.  As the debate continues to move forward, I am interested to see if this compromise will be given more consideration on the senate floor.

For those of you interested in hearing more detailed accounts of Senate Public Option bickering, check out this Washington Post article.

Want to get your two cents in? Log in or register to post comments!

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is set to release his compromise bill today, estimated to cost $849 Billion and reduce deficits by $127 Billion by 2019. The legislation would also expand health care access to 94% of the uninsured or roughly 31 million people. Reid's compromise bill appears to be a shift in the right direction, costing roughly 45 Billion less than the House Democrat bill and with only a 2% difference in expanded coverage for the uninsured. An article publish today in the Washington Post further states that,

"The cost of the package would be more than made up for by cuts in future Medicare spending and an array of new taxes, the aide said, reducing projected budget deficits by $127 billion no later than 2019 -- the biggest cost savings of any health care package so far assembled by congressional Democrats. The measure would also save the government money in the long term, the aide said, cutting projected deficits by as much as $650 billion between 2019 and 2029."

This is music to my fiscally conservative ears, with 16% of our GDP tied up in health care spending, deficit cuts like these are exactly what we need to get our health care system fiscally sound and sustainable for the long term.

Legislators expect to finance the bill through more than $400 billion in Medicare cuts, and potentially a small increase in the Medicare payroll tax for workers who earn more than $250,000 per year, as well as a new tax on high-cost insurance policies.

Another key element of the compromise bill is its approach to the controversial public option, which provides an option for consumers to purchase government-sold insurance and allows states to opt out of providing that option. Essentially, the bill would set up new insurance markets, called "exchanges" primarily for Americans who have a hard time obtaining and keeping coverage, with subsidies available to individuals who are unable to afford coverage.

I really think what is most interesting about this bill is the compromise on the public option. Does allowing states to opt out make it more appealing? I'd love to hear some of your thoughts so post your comments by registering or logging in.

Looking for a copy of the full senate bill online? You can read the full text of the Senate HELP Committee Bill here, and the Senate Finance Bill here.

As America continues to struggle to pull out of our current economic recession, the need to reform our national health care system becomes more and more essential to the sustained fiscal health of our national and local economies.  In 2007, the United States spent approximately $2.2 Trillion dollars on health care, which translates to roughly a 16% share of our gross domestic product (GDP). Health care spending is not just a long-term federal budget issue; rising health care premiums, costs of services, and high deductibles are rapidly and covertly bankrupting the middle class. In 2007, at least 62% of all personal bankruptcies in America were linked to illness and medical debt, although roughly three quarters of these individuals had health insurance, were college educated, and owned homes.

To say that cost control and savings policies should be essential aspects of health legislation is a gross understatement. Given the financial stakehold that health care has in our economy, significant cost control and savings policies MUST be apart of health legislation. However, a Washington Post article indicated yesterday that many experts fear that the House and Senate health care bills are too timid on cutting costs and broader changes are needed.

Here are a couple of the concerns highlighted in the article:

-- A Senate plan to tax high-priced insurance policies saves far less money -- and is less likely to change medical consumption -- than eliminating the tax exemption for employer-sponsored coverage.

-- Proposals on comparative-effectiveness research and a new Medicare cost-cutting commission have been watered down.

-- An array of Medicare pilot projects aimed at paying doctors and hospitals for quality rather than quantity would take years to be implemented nationally -- if they ever were.

-- None of the bills addresses medical liability, even though the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that tort reform could save $54 billion over the next decade.

In May, Obama and Health Care Industry leaders promoted policies that were estimated to save $2 trillion dollars in health care spending, but only a few of these policies, such as streamlining insurance claims forms have been included in legislation.

Many critics of pending health care legislation sing the same tune: they fundamentally endorse the ideas included but warn reforms fall short of the cost savings possible and that pilot projects may take too long to adopt broadly and may not achieve the cost savings needed.

Hope Street Group feels strongly that for health care reform legislation to be successful, it is imperative that legislation reforms the system to be both fiscally responsible and sustainable, with changes to the health care delivery system designed to reduce system wide future health care cost growth, including federal and state government programs.

Interested in reading the full Washington Post Article? You can find it here.