September 22, 2009 12:06 PM

What Obama Should Say About Health Care

(The Nation)  President Obama did all the Sunday morning talk shows, as part of a ramped-up campaign to promote his sincere if ill-defined belief that health care should be reformed, and he continued to argue, albeit tepidly, that this reform probably needs to include a public option.

Obama was smooth and smart and presidential and the appearances on ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," CNN's "State of the Union" and on the Spanish-language Univision network will undoubtedly aid his personal approval ratings.

But these exercises in pulled punches and anti-government apologia will do little to advance the cause of genuine health care reform.

Indeed, as Obama describes his notion of a public option, it is so constrained, under-funded and uninspired in approach as to be dysfunctional.
While there is no question that the right reform remains a single-payer "Medicare for All" system that provides quality care for all Americans while eliminating insurance company profiteering, if the best that can be hoped for is a government-supported alternative to the corporate options, then it should be robust enough to compete.

That's what Congressional Progressive Caucusco-chair Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, is proposing on behalf of the CPC, which now numbers more than 80 House members.

Grijalva says, "The CPC will do its best to ensure that the public option is as close to Medicare as we can get it."
To that end, he says caucus members will use their key committee positions and needed votes to promote "a robust public option" that:

• Enacts concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.

• Consists of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.

• Be made available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation.

• Allows patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promotes the medical home model and eliminates lifetime caps on benefits.

• Has the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management and good public health.

• Utilizes the existing infrastructure of successful public programs, such as Medicare, in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes, including payment systems, claims and appeals.

• Establishes or negotiates rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.

• Receives a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.

• Ensures premiums are priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.
That's the outline of a real public option -- one that is robust enough to fight for.

Indeed, if President Obama had outlined it during his Sunday morning television appearances, the cause of real reform would have gotten the boost it needed.

As things stand, the CPC -- not the unreliable and unfocused Blue Dogs and certainly not the Democratic Leadership Council-aligned "New Democrats," who come with more corporate strings attached than many Republicans -- are the best strategic and practical allies that the president has. By adopting the CPC line with regard to the public option, Obama could energize the base that elected him and turn this into a real fight, bringing savvy inside-outside political operations like that of Progressive Democrats of Americainto the thick of the struggle and activating the crowds that turned out in cities across the country last week for the "Mad As Hell Doctors" tour on behalf of "Medicare for All."

By significantly muscling up his public-option proposal, the president could also give the labor movement's most determined organizers (who are, invariably, single-payer backers) something to sink their teeth into.

Obama can still get a public option.

But he needs to understand that the public option is, itself, a compromise. It falls short of the "Medicare for All" model favored by serious reformers.
As such, the president cannot compromise the compromise.

He needs to take seriously the standards outlined by Grijalva and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Indeed, he needs to incorporate them into his agenda. The right will scream in opposition. But the right is already screaming in opposition. Obama needs to get the left screaming in support of real reform.
By John Nichols:
Reprinted with permission from The Nation

The Nation
Add a Comment See all 11 Comments
by kikomanson September 23, 2009 8:02 PM EDT
Health care in the U.S. is designed for the rich and is overpriced, The Democracts must understand that the Repug right wing did not elect them to office, most of the corporations did not elect them either. We the (majority of the Voters of the U.S.) elected them and we demand change,Raul Grijalva D. Az is my representative and President Obama must address the needs of those that elected him. He will never satisfy all U.S. voters, the Repugs have let thier position be known, they represent the health care system that priced 40 million Americans out of health care coverage.
The Party of Change, best listen to the voters that Elected Them.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti September 23, 2009 5:28 PM EDT
The President and the Congress must abide by the Constitution which states they must provide for the general WELFARE, this includes health care for all, a basic human right. Right now most of the welfare goes to the rich.

We will get a public option for health care and eventually universal, single payer. So get used to it.
Reply to this comment
by CitizenMikeM September 23, 2009 6:47 PM EDT
Single Payer is inevitable. It is also the right way to go. Just expand Medicare to all, with individual mandate and subsidies, if necessary. Already in place and could be functional almost immediately. Too simple for Congress?
by doc_holliday76 September 23, 2009 1:42 AM EDT
"He needs to take seriously the standards outlined by Grijalva and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Indeed, he needs to incorporate them into his agenda. The right will scream in opposition. But the right is already screaming in opposition. Obama needs to get the left screaming in support of real reform."
-----------------------------------





Yep.....the louder the water carrying rightwads scream, the closer to REAL health care reform we will be.
Reply to this comment
by jgg00009 September 22, 2009 8:07 PM EDT
He should say that he's lying through his teeth about everything from additional taxes to adding to the deficit to better coverage. The less of these people interfering in our lives the better we will all be.
Reply to this comment
by CitizenMikeM September 23, 2009 5:12 PM EDT
Some people just like to shout from the rooftops, railing against the government, but when there's a flood--"where's the damm govt? Fires approaching your property..."where's the gov't? Drought to the farmers...Gov't help us..where are you? You don't mind them "interfering in your lives", then--do you? You don't have a clue what socialism really is, but you claim our gov't is trying to force it on us. You hear some talking head mention "death panels" and right away-proof not withstanding-you insist the gov't is behind it. Ignorance and gullibility and perhaps some hatred tossed in--is all some people want to know.
by sjc_1 September 24, 2009 2:04 AM EDT
Well written comment Mike. It seems that when there are taxes to be paid for the good of all, don't ask them. When there is money to be had from the treasury, they have their hand out and then they complain about "free loaders".
by retiredgustav September 22, 2009 2:05 PM EDT
If the current health care proposals fail,I see extending Medicare to the over 50 group. I don't know how many of the neo-cons realize it but more and more companies are doing away with retiree medical benefits. This means that the dream of retiring early will no longer be an option. And if someone claims no one should retire before 65,they never had a job where one actually has to work such as a lineman or a auto worker.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti September 22, 2009 1:58 PM EDT
How about saying that the private sector, dominated by greedy, uncaring big corporations, have completely failed. America gave them a chance and they proved the "free market" to be a sham. And that corporations, set up for the good of the commons, cannot regulate themselves.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 September 22, 2009 1:46 PM EDT
Maybe the Medicare Plus public option will turn into Medicare for all, who knows? It would take another piece of legislation after this to do that, but if it is working and we need to do that, we should.

This is what scares the right wing, who are fronting for the private sector for profit insurance companies. Whether it is insurance, defense, drug companies, oil or any other hugely profitable activity, there are those that want to defend those profits at all cost.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti September 22, 2009 1:40 PM EDT
The entire nation that voted to put him in office and increase the majorities in both houses want him to stand up and sock it to the insurance and drug company barons.

Nothing else will substitute, no amount of waffling, pleading and intelligent reasoning. It is either us (We the People) or Them.
Reply to this comment
See all 11 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook