A new compromise proposal by Sen. Tom Carper would spell out how to boost competition in the private market by enacting government-run plans at the state level.
Under the proposal, in its current form, each state would have the option to:
1) Participate as grantees in the CO-OP program and apply for seed funding.
2) Open up that state’s employee benefits plan to all citizens.
3) Create a state administered health insurance plan (public option) with the opportunity of banding together with other states to create a regional insurance compact.
"Conceptually, having the states take responsibility makes a great deal of sense," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key voice for moderate Democrats ... states are already in the health-insurance business because they administer Medicaid and other federal-state programs.
One key Republican in the debate, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, cast doubt on the Carper idea. She favors the so called 'trigger' should private insurers fail to provide affordable coverage.
But, when it comes to the twin objectives of lowering costs and providing coverage to all, the experience of state-by-state systems hasn't been a happy one. The vicissitudes of the business cycle make stable funding problematic. Unable to run budget deficits in lean years, recession-strapped state governments invariably must cut benefits, beneficiaries or even their programs altogether.
Most Republicans remain opposed to the president's plans. Yet recent census data suggest that those Americans lacking health insurance now are far more likely to live in states that usually vote Republican — the very states with senators and representatives least likely to support a law to extend coverage.
Opposition to health care reform thus presents a double quandary for the Republican leadership in Congress and in the states. It is their residents that need health care reform most, and as it turns out, the funding in part would come from blue state (northeast and midwest) taxpayers. Health care reform spending would be little different from the overall pattern of red state socialism (chart).
Children's health varies by state as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2011&query=TOC#printpreview
Maine, Tennessee, and Massachusetts universal healthcare plans a bust.
ReplyDeleteTennessee has its TennCare program, Maine has tried a “public option” program, and Massachusetts has its RomenyCare system that promises healthcare for all. Each of them has been a boondoggle for the taxpayers and has failed to deliver promised savings and enhanced coverage.
In fact, each of these states have begun to cut services to people because the costs have skyrocketed despite claims that “savings” would occur and that everyone would get more coverage.
Here's another view of the Public Option.
ReplyDeleteas stated in the initial post, the problem with state run health programs is that while state budgets are subject to the economic cycle, they cannot compensate for shortfalls with deficits.
ReplyDeletethe federal govt, on the other hand, can weather that storm.