Tweet
From Feingold’s statement:
Frankly, I am disappointed that this has become the topic of so much controversy, because it is such a fundamental part of making sure we provide the reform that my constituents, and all Americans, deserve. Some have even suggested scrapping a public option in the interest of passing a bill with bipartisan support. I want to pass health care reform and I hope very much we can do so with bipartisan support. But I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. I am not interested in a bill that allows us to somehow tell our constituents we have done something but doesn’t really address their concerns. We need real reform, and real reform means a strong public option.
And Americans want a public health insurance option. According to a recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, over three fourths of those polled said they would like the ability to choose between public and private health insurance plans. Providing a public health insurance option that does not discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions and illnesses will significantly improve the ability of people to access health care.
. . .
Too often, Americans are at the mercy of insurance companies when it comes to paying premiums, out-of-pocket costs, and deductibles. While I commend the growing efforts of select insurers to increase transparency, for the most part, consumers have little idea how much procedures cost, where premium dollars go, and whether you are truly getting the best value for your dollar. A public health insurance option would serve as a benchmark competitor for premiums, administrative costs, and benefits packages.
A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy private market and effective private insurance plans. We have several insurers that operate in my home state of Wisconsin that provide great health coverage to their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits of their plans. But a strong public health insurance option will provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to re-evaluate their own cost-sharing and benefit plans to ensure they are actually an attractive option for consumers.
4 Comments
The problem is Feingold -and Sanders- seem to be the only Senators with any concern except keeping the monies flowing to the campaign coffers.
So far as I am concerned, Feingold and Sanders are the only 2 Senators that are consistently worth a hill of beans. The rest of them should just crawl under a rock and stay there and save us the misery.
I thought a lot of people *already* thought they lived ‘under a rock’.
Clearly gov’t needs to regulate private insurers against their most egregious behaviors. But, I suggest a public option where gov’t subsidizes some folks and enables them to get private insurance via the Exchange. To qualify for the exchange a private insurer must uphold certain standards.
This is less simple than single-payer, but a lot easier to implement quickly. It also doesn’t force everyone to pay (the individual mandate of a sort), so there will be differences of opinion over that. I happen to be one who finds the idea of gov’t *forcing* anyone to buy insurance or pay a tax for health care to be odious and probably unconstitutional.
Are you, on principle, against taxation or just taxes used to fund a health care system?
Feingold seems to lean towards something that would involve firms making a profit out of health care, as if it were to do with a car or a block of flats.