Sen. Feingold: Won't Support Health Care Bill Without Public Option

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 12:54:46 PM EST
Tags: health care reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) released this statement today on the public option. A snippet:

A strong public option would ensure competition in the industry to provide the best, most affordable insurance for Americans and bring down the skyrocketing health care costs that are the biggest contributor to our long-term budget deficits. I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don’t see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.”

Progressives keep ratcheting up the pressure. Via Firedoglake today: [More...]

For the better part of a year now, progressive members-- who would rather see a single payer system-- have been selling the public option to their constituents as a necessary compromise. Progressives, in exchange for compromising on single payer (and supporting the president's agenda), were supposed to be able to trust Leadership and the president not to compromise on the public option.

A move away from the public option is a breach of that trust....the White House needs to understand that, or they risk losing the support of the base.

So, if I understand, the best outcome is a single-payer system but there was no hope of that, so the public option (so long as it's a robust one) was a compromise. Taking away the public option leaves zilch and a bill not worth passing.

It's looking to me like the pressure for some kind of public option will succeed. We may be down to whether it's a sufficiently robust one. The devil's always in the details.

< Stand Up For The Public Option | AARP Not Endorsing Any Specific Health Care Plan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sen. Feingold: Won't Support Health Care Bill Without Public Option | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The other Senator from his state (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Cream City on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 01:08:12 PM EST

says at a town hall in the state that it's not gonna happen. Feingold's round of constituent meetings could get more interesting.

: Both represent some of highest costs (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Cream City on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 01:13:50 PM EST

in health care in the country, btw, "unusually high costs" in the metro area that is home to more than a third of the population of their state:

A GAO estimate pegged Milwaukee health care cost at 27% above the average paid for federal employees around the country. Mercer Health and Benefits found Milwaukee health care costs to be 39% above other areas in the Midwest. A Mercer/Foster Higgins survey placed Milwaukee's costs at 55% above other Midwest metro areas. Even in the market for individual insurance, coverage is costly. Assurant Inc., a Milwaukee-based insurer, has posted prices for Milwaukee purchasers that exceed what would be expected for this market. By any definition, Milwaukee is an expensive health care market.
And premiums are set to soar again for the Milwaukee-area employees of the largest employer in the state: the state itself.

[ Parent ]

Just (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 02:03:28 PM EST

scrap the current bills and use Howard Dean's health plan from 2004.

Pressure is good (none / 0) (#1)
by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 01:07:13 PM EST

Pressure is the only thing that's going to push the issue. Look at the impact the town hall screamers seem to have made. I contacted all my reps and let them know that the screamers weren't speaking for me.

Is there anyone besides Feingold who've (none / 0) (#3)
by magster on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 01:12:37 PM EST

made this statement. I imagine that Bernie Sanders had. If there could be a group of 10 or so Senators who make this statement, that would kill the pandering to the Grassley's of the world.

Rockefeller has made some (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 01:26:54 PM EST

rather strong statements about the necessity of a public option. Don't know it he has gone so far as saying he would not vote for a bill without one.

[ Parent ]

A vocal Senate coalition (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by ruffian on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 02:22:11 PM EST

is needed to match the one in the House. That would give it a lot more force.

[ Parent ]

Someone should ask Franken, Boxer, (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 01:16:44 PM EST

Gillibrand, Cardin, Burris, and Rockefeller.

[ Parent ]

Yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by eric on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 02:55:28 PM EST

Franken said that he supported a "strong public option" but declined to say whether he would vote for a bill without it.

I do like his answer to the question, though, and it is some good advice for Obama, as well:

"I'm not going to negotiate against myself"

[ Parent ]

The Senate is trickier (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 03:08:41 PM EST

for the following reason: I do believe that it will have to pass a bill without a public option so it can go to conference. What I would have said, were I Franken, is that I would be unwilling to vote for a Conference Report without a public option.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#14)
by eric on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 03:28:36 PM EST

he's not boxing himself into a corner by making any kind of public proclamation. I think that is smart.

[ Parent ]

: Depends on what's he's trying to do (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 03:29:37 PM EST

I think a little brinksmanship is called for under the circumstances.

[ Parent ]

Slightly ot., but... (none / 0) (#9)
by desertswine on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 02:42:38 PM EST

I just got the bill from the hospital for my recent gallbladder surgery and related hospital stay. Guess how much.

No. Not even close.

It's $80,000!!!

Yes, I have insurance. But what if I didn't?

Well (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 03:43:36 PM EST

I hope that you also have a stop loss in your insurance plan, because 80% of 80,000 is still $16,000.

Wish you well.

[ Parent ]

No kidding honey (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 03:50:51 PM EST

And what seniors have to pay for their prescriptions and all the machinations the prescription plans went through trying to squeeze the last fricken dollar out of every single senior is pathetic too! It is time to say enough insanity. You know who they'll bankrupt are the hospitals. The only real money the hospitals really see are your deductibles. By the time the insurance companies have pared down their payments to them it is pathetic. Once you are too broke to afford your deductibles...the healthcare system portion that actually provides healthcare is screwed. But insurance company CEOs will be looking at Italian villas. You literally pay through the nose to avoid having a catastrophic illness thrown completely on you...and that's about it....and you pay an incredible monthly sum for that....and in the end you will still fight denials.

[ Parent ]

Hospitals make (none / 0) (#19)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:39:48 PM EST

up some of the money by overcharging the uninsured who don't have access to the negotiated rate that the insurance companies "allow". This is one of the problems with being uninsured, one of the rationales for buying at least high deductible insurance... the insurance-negotiated discount rate.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:


[ Parent ]

To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:58:02 PM EST

hospitals in my area are offering discounted pricing to the uninsured. I do not know how these discounts compare to those offered to the insurance industry but I know that they exist. I was given a pamphlet each time I used a hospital service telling me that discounts were available and also giving me information on what services were available to help with the financial burden.

[ Parent ]

That's true in the Seattle area, as well (none / 0) (#24)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:05:24 PM EST

I recall signs in a variety of locations around the hospital stating assistance was available to those who needed it.

[ Parent ]

The article (none / 0) (#30)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 06:51:15 PM EST

specifically states that low income people get assistance. The uninsured people who can "afford it," who don't qualify for the assistance, are the ones getting reamed.

[ Parent ]

In this 2006 article (none / 0) (#32)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 07:14:26 PM EST

about a hospital lawsuit settlement in Oregon, tThe last line states that 60 lawsuits are (were) in process against hospitals around the country because they overcharge the uninsured:

Again, it's true that low income people are eligible for aid. However, it's difficult for people who are just average middle class to get relief, hence the lawsuits.

[ Parent ]

: The hospitals in my area are not (none / 0) (#35)
by MO Blue on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:19:59 AM EST

giving the discounts to the uninsured in the form of aid. It is my understanding that the discounted rates are available to those who would be classified as middle class. There are other financial programs separate and apart from the discounts to help people with very low incomes.
It is possible that the lawsuits you referenced motivated our hospitals to start offering these discounted rates to the uninsured. Who knows.

[ Parent ]

20%, not 80% (none / 0) (#21)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:54:04 PM EST

: Arithmetic professors (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 06:03:00 PM EST

Grammar police....I knew what she meant :) I'm not tipping on this one.

[ Parent ]
: You are my troll (none / 0) (#31)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 06:51:53 PM EST

quite apparently. Henceforth and hereon I ignore everything you say.

[ Parent ]

Wow. n/t (none / 0) (#12)
by shoephone on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 03:02:26 PM EST

If you didn't... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 03:35:53 PM EST

you would starting transferring every asset of worth you own to somebody else, and ignore the bills when they show up in the mailbox...like anybody else without insurance:)

[ Parent ]

That's the bill.... (none / 0) (#20)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:51:24 PM EST

Or the insurance company statement? How much of that is the negotiated allowable? The providers have to accept the allowable as payment in FULL. If you have 20% responsibility, it will be 20% of the allowable, not the actual bill.

[ Parent ]

Talk to me! (none / 0) (#22)
by Cream City on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:54:07 PM EST

One of my kids is incurring all sorts of bills, looks like we have another chronic condition, poor kid. And she's laid off and on COBRA, and it just isn't seeming to cover much of the tests -- just as the previous insurer left her with lots of bills from surgeries and stays as well as tests.

So how do I look up the "allowables"? Tips? Thanks!

[ Parent ]

: Start with the insurance company (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:16:08 PM EST

If their statement of what they paid isn't showing the allowable, and what portion of the bill is the "patient responsibility" they need to explain why not.
Your daughter should be going by the what the insurance company says is her share, not the provider's.
I'd be exploring the insurance company website, and the insurance commissioner's website just to see if I could find some of the "rules," too. Once I got to the real dollar amount owed, I'd be back at the hospital asking to talk to the person who would be able to negotiate the patient portion of the bill.

[ Parent ]
: That information should be available (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:45:28 PM EST

either from the insurance carrier or from the medical provider.
Insurance statement would look something like this:
Submitted Charges: 29.00, Negotiated or Allowed: 21.69 Paid At: 0% if policy has deductible that has not been met or 80% ( % based on policy provisions) Plan Paid: 0 if deductible not met, You Owe: 21.69 (i.e. the negotiated amt.) Plan Paid: 17.35 (80%) You Owe: 4.34 (20%)
Hospital statements can be more confusing IMO. My hospital uses this method.
Total charges: minus Total Adjustments (i.e. discounts) minus Estimated Insurance Due equals Please Pay This Amount
There could be an account balance of 50 or 60 thousand dollars on the statement but you only pay the amount indicated in the Please Pay This Amount.
Before your daughter pays anything she need to review her insurance policy carefully to make sure that they are paying according to policy provisions and speak to someone at the billing facility who is the the Financial Specialist or equivalent to make sure she is receiving all discounts available and what financial help might be available to her.

[ Parent ]

That's the bill... (none / 0) (#25)
by desertswine on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:08:21 PM EST

I have yet to hear from my insurance company, other then a couple of letters approving of the services I received.

[ Parent ]

Can you access your insurance (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:25:03 PM EST

statement on your insurance provider's website?

My mother spent a total of 25 days in the hospital during her last 10 months. Test after test after test, and even time in ICU. Endless doctor appts and tests in between hospital stays. It cost them a total of $37.00 out of pocket. That's how great Medicare is!!!

Why can't these congress people give EVERYONE Medicare?!?!?!

[ Parent ]

: OK, the ins co... (none / 0) (#36)
by desertswine on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 09:37:33 AM EST

sent me a statement. I owe them $450. At least I can afford that.

[ Parent ]

Thank God there's . . . (none / 0) (#10)
by Doc Rock on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 02:47:42 PM EST

. . . Democrat with a pair!

Russ Feingold (none / 0) (#33)
by weltec2 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:56:38 PM EST

is a rare gem but he's young. I hope as he gets older he does not get corrupted.

56 is young? (none / 0) (#34)
by shoephone on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:05:08 PM EST

Hmm.

[ Parent ]

: You're right. (none / 0) (#37)
by weltec2 on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 10:37:48 AM EST

He's not that young. He's always just seemed very young and innocent to me.

[ Parent ]