Specter open to public health plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Arlen Specter says he's open to a government health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers to cover middle-class Americans, a policy reversal for the newest Democrat.

Specter had upset many in his new party with his opposition to the public plan, which is perhaps the most controversial component of the health reform debate in Congress.

But in a letter to the progressive group Health Care for America Now, Specter said he looks forward to "discussing and considering" the issue. He said a starting point could be a proposal by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that seeks to maintain a level playing field between the private and public sector.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0RKUmB01orvPi9ljrUs54xhfUkgD9844HH06

and make sure that he knows we mean business. If he wants to be a democrat he has to act like one.

His office number is (202) 224-4254 .

It amounts to no real change. Sheesh doesn't it tell you anything that Specter is immediately on board?

:thumbsdown:

:thumbsdown:

:spank:

The point is that I support a public option. I fully want universal/single payer health care. However, I realize the political climate won't allow that. So considering that the political climate is wrought with Republicans who hate the American people and Dems who are either bought off by corporations or hate the American people. I want to make sure I support a plan that pushes a positive idea nd get things done. O's plan is a public option, not one where we have to buy insurance. Again I think he's working on it. If we pay it will be like a tax payment put into a co-pay amount or possibly totally free. I don' think it will be in the hundreds of dollars because he wants to get 46 million people insured. Keeping it in the 100s doesn't get people on board or in the plan.

Secondly, O knows the failures of the Mass plan. He won't let that happen with the Gov plan.IN any event I support the public option because it can pass and if it has strong guidelines like free to small costs, to provides everything medicare does and more and allows for crowding-out (which is will no matter what) then we're game because private insurance and still be taken down.

Where are you getting your information about the public option.
I would appreciate a link.

Public Finance/Public Policy by Johnathan Gruber...any Health Economics text book.

http://candidblogger.blogspot.com/2009/04/public-health-insurance-option-key-to.html

The above might be helpful.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009051908/obama-administration-makes-clear-its-support-public-health-insurance-plan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958544583612437.html <---this particular article has an inside scare tactic...to keep people from supporting public option. And they should be fearful because exactly what they lay out will happen except if O puts a small monthly fee maybe a co-pay of sorts for $30 a visit or a monthly payment of $30 a month---the costs would be met and would work like a tax does without issuing a tax. In the end Americans win because they don't see the fee similar to a tax and it shuts up the repubs who are dumb. And we still get a public option that destroys the private insurance that allows a sort of universal health care similar to the UK to be established.

You could find out a lot of information on the crowding out affect. O even mentioned it at the health summit and it's mentioned in the WSJ article. Its something that is found in businesses. However, it can work when a government entity takes over a market or provides something that was normally run by the market. IN this case health care. It pushes out other plays and crows out the other players from participating on an even playing field.

Let me know if that's good.

And they are attacking Howard Dean for his support of it, enlisting Nader and Sirota. I often agree with Sirota but not this time.

We have a chance to get an option that will lead to single payer, but DUers have decided no.

controversy? Sometimes I think there are people who simply want a fight.

watered down to make it easier for private insurers to compete. The words "level playing field" means that the government plan shouldn't be able to achieve cost savings unavailable to the private insurers. Even though the whole point of the govt. option is that it SHOULD be cheaper because it doesn't have to include a profit margin.

I think it would be great if the public plan started with a profit margin which shrank under these guys noses, giving them competition and a run for their money.

Isn't that the best way of influencing the plans that already exist? I like it!!!

Being a liberal does not necessarily make one emotionally more mature then the Puke:

ripped off by the predatory health insurance companies who deny us care but charge us some of the highest rates in the world for some of the worst health outcomes in the developed world.

pushing the "level playing field" concept. They acknowledge that the government run plan would be cheaper because it wouldn't have the need for a built in profit. They say this isn't FAIR to the private insurers -- and it would result in everybody flocking to the government plan -- so they are demanding concessions that would "level the playing field." But this would defeat the whole purpose of a government run option!

government run option won't be able to achieve the cost savings that it otherwise would, if it is to let the private insurers "compete."

became very junior after the Norm Coleman remark.

It was sickening. I called his office to complain.

Sure don't want to cut into insurance industry profits!

He's so transparent!

What he says doesn't matter. When it comes time for a vote though, just wave a big "Do this or else" and he'll comply... whoever waves it first...

After decades of a very uneven playing field-- private way out on top, driving lots of people away due to their ever escalating costs-- dominating the market and killing off previous attempts to get a public option--

NOW they want a LEVEL playing field?

NOW they can devise ways to trim 1.5% from their PLANNED COST INCREASES to save us $2 Trillion over the next ten years?

Where were they over the last ten years when more and more people were excluded from their ever escalating expensive care?

They didn't bother cutting costs by $2 Trillion over the past decade but GOLLY GEE WE'RE SO GRATEFUL NOW?

Hey Ma, look at all the money I'm not gonna spend in the next ten years!

It makes me want to go back and read the old Fleming 007 books again.

We don't need his vote anyways. We only need 50 votes to pass major health care overhaul legislation. We better not water it down for this Repuke.

that broke kneed option is pretty thin gruel..