Here's a twist that's been working well for republicans and their gaggling gang of supporters in the gamesmanship being played against President Obama and congressional supporters of the public health care option.
The core premise behind the public option is that it offers the public an alternative to choose from along with traditional privately held health care insurance. It's an option. Obama has been saying all along if you like the health care plan you've got, you can keep it. If you don't, you can choose a different privately held insurance plan or consider the public option.
With that said, those against developing public-run competition in the health care industry swamped the traditional media, cable news and talk radio by claiming the government will eventually force everyone to accept the public option. That there really is no choice. Afterwards, they attempted to one-up the President with the question "Will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new "Universal Health Care Plan," that the rest us will be on? It's a fair question only if you completely ignore the core premise of the public option. From the beginning Obama has been saying, "you can keep your plan if you like it. Lets just say Obama really likes the health care plan he's got. I don't blame him. Secondly, public option supporters never really claimed it is equal to what Congress gets. It's merely an affordable and competing option. Simple. I'm not defending it, or trying to make it into something it's not - it is what it is.
However, in this local radio interview last week, Rep. Paul Ryan made a series of statements supporting claims that his plan dubbed Patients Choice offers everybody the same plan Congress has right now. Yep, that's precisely what Ryan says. In fact he said it's literally in law what he proposes. But Ryan went even further. He said not only will the public get the same plan members of Congress have, it'll be at a better cost!
I don't know how important or fair it is to have the very same health care plan or coverage congress has. There certainly is a populist flavor to that idea, but I would rather see the impact of health care costs on their paychecks be the same impact as on everyone else. In other words, I would rather see Congress have the same plan I have, then have the plan they have - if you know what I mean. After all, how else can we make sure Congress has the very same experience with health care costs as everyone else.
But Ryan conveniently sets himself up by implying that because members of Congress would not be as well subsidized from the government as participants in the "Patients Choice", they (congress) will courageously and responsibly pay more and keep the plan they got.
We need to get past Ryan's typical blast of smoke and angling of mirrors and ask him to go on record with his own plan. Would Congressman Ryan drop his employer provided health care plan if by some chance "Patients Choice" became law? And since Ryan and his Republicans advocated a failed amendment that would have forced all members of congress to buy the public plan, thereby circumventing the option of choice, will Ryan drop his employer provided health care plan if a genuine public option became available? Or was that amendment just a another ploy to unfairly portray the public option and its supporters?
Companion article to this post.
6 comments:
Thank you for the kind words. They are appreciated.
The title of your article stated that Paul Ryan was playing usual games with health care reform. Where was the game? Your article didn't argue the case.
Ryan gets to keep the plan he's got while offering the public no other choice but privately held health care insurance. At the same time, he attempted to bait the majority and reframe their efforts with an amendment that would essentially remove the freedom of choice from the public option. Ryan's efforts are more propagandist and obstructionist than to offer any constructive points for reform. I'm afraid I can't help you see the game Ryan is playing if you can't pick up on it after what I wrote.
First of all, Paul Ryan does not have a public option, there is no public option. Congress selects for an array of PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. His employer the tax payer pays part of the premium and he pays the rest. Please get your facts straight
Where did you read Ryan is offering a public option? Not at this web page. Ryan’s plan offers no choice but the same privately held insurance companies anyone can get right now - if they can afford it.
The federal government subsidizes Ryan's family health care with about $9,168. He copays about $4,284 a year for a grand total of $13,452. Ryan clearly stated that his plan will give the same coverage he gets, but for less. The "Patients Choice" plan expects families to pay for it with a $5,700 TAX CREDIT subsidy. At the same time, Ryan’s plan relieves employers from the duty of sponsoring a health care plan. Because that is how the tax credit is paid for – his plan shifts the tax incentive from the employer to the employee. No more group leverage, you’re on your own. For everyone except himself – the government employee.
“Hello, Blue Cross? My name is Lou and I have a family of five. I’d like to get the same health care plan all federal employees and members of Congress have. I’ve got a tax credit here for $5,700 and I’m willing to kick in an additional $2,000 in cash. Hurry sign me up!”
In the meantime, Ryan tried to corner public option supporters with an amendment that would force all members of Congress to drop their Blue Cross/Blue shield option if the public option became law. His idea here was, if you support the public option so much, you should be forced to have it. This was phony legislation designed to remove the option from the public option. Get that straight.
excellent post and comment at 11:51. ryan stated that the public option would eventually force workers off of employer based plans when that is precisely what his plan is intended to do.
Post a Comment