Surprise! Proposed Health Insurance Reform Will Raise Premiums

Oh, there's plenty wrong with the Baucus plan and even more with the House legislation. Who knows what will be "produced" in conference between the two bodies.

As for the health insurers' news about dire consequences of Baucus's "reform" measures, which include the risk (or the threat, as I added) of much higher insurance premiums, my reaction was the same as so many others': Are these just scare tactics? The real-world answer, of course, was what Baucus had to say in his reply. Did he simply say these are scare tactics? Crucially, he did not; he chose to engage in bureaucrat-blather, instead. Which is to say, his response amounts to proof by implicit admission (by choosing not to directly dispute the charges) that the charges by the insurers have truth to them.

There is nothing good in either house. Passing a public option is the way to go. Other countries can do it, so can we.

Passing a public option is the way to go.

I agree. We have a "public option" in education that hasn't driven private schools out of business. On the contrary, private schools are kept honest by our cost-efficient palaces of public learning.

"Su-Prise. Su-Prise". Gomer Pyle.

...which is precisely why they need real competition from a public option. Gee... I'm shocked (SHOCKED) that the insurance industry would want to produce a report of their own that they'd increase premiums. I'm SHOCKED that an industry that profits billions every year by denying coverage to people who pay for it wouldn't want reform. I'm SHOCKED that the biggest opposition group is led by a guy made infamous for stepping down as the company he led pled guilty to what is arguably the biggest Medicare and health insurance fraud in history.

One of the things that has always been a problem is that insurers in this country are allowed to operate as for-profit corporations rather than non-profits. Until the need to expand the bottom line and pad the pockets of executives (by denying care or raising premiums) is eliminated, we will continue to see major problems with health care in the United States.

By the way... I'm sure they failed to mention that the premiums they are referring to apply to those plans which will be purchased outside the Health Insurance Exchange. Those offered within the exchange actually have a cap on out of pocket expenses and have a minimum on what can be covered. In other words, they won't be the ones calling the shots-- at least for the plans offered through the exchange. Now I suppose that they could decide not to compete with the plans that offer better coverage at a lower price and then put themselves out of business. I might even be interested in taking bets as to whether or not they'd make good on that one or if it's just a scare tactic.

But I'm sure that was a minor, unimportant detail... The wonderful health insurance industry would never want to mislead us to believe that ALL premiums would go up for less coverage.

Quiz Time: Who said?
"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses,

Who said this?
"We need to work out a system that includes a greater emphasis on preventive care, sufficient public funding for health insurance for those who cannot afford it in the private sector, competition among healthcare providers and health insurance providers to keep down the costs of both, and decoupling the cost of healthcare from the cost of adding workers to the payroll," he wrote.

Exactly.....the only way Harvard can get away with charging tens of thousand of dollars is by offering a much better product than a public uni. Of course, there are places like UCLA that are pubilc and also elite.

Same with USPS vs UPS.

Same with Medicare vs "sorry, you forgot to dot an "i", so we are revoking your health insurance. Best of luck with that cancer."


Side note, I've lived in a public health care system....I have direct personal experience...I know these attacks on the public option are nothing but fear tactics. If Americans actually knew the truth, we would have had a public option decades ago. Sadly, conservatives that are more interested in defeating Obama and the health care industry are flooding the airwaves with lies in an attempt to keep Americans ignorant. They seem to be doing a pretty good job.

"Same with USPS vs UPS."

This always was a poor analogy, that backfired when health care activists tried using it, and likely is why they've stopped using it and used the public university example instead. I only wish they'd also drop the low-IQ lie-drivel about "competition" that "keeps costs down" and "keeps the private sector honest," etc.

Rigged "competition" [sic] that intends to displace and eventually replace the private sector has been the truth all along.

And what success! Public schools have super low overhead, aren't constantly coming back demanding more money from taxpayers, and their results are reliably world-class.

It isn't a poor analogy. I use both USPS and UPS, depending on what I want to mail. Sure, the USPS might have to raise the price of a stamp, but who cares? Who else is going to deliever a piece of mail from Maine to Southern California for under a dollar?

Toss in the number of other carriers in the business and you have a great system that provides a great variety of choice.

I went to a public school and got a great education. I even took college level classes that transfered to my university. Some school systems do have problems, which is why having a private option or school vouchers will provide competition and force those bad schools to get better or be shut down.

I thought conservatives liked competition?

Postal service and schools...two perfect examples of how competition can drive innovation and better products.

jazz

You mention the law of unintended consequences, really, I thought the millions in targeted lobbying funds had pretty much given private health every thing they wanted, more compelled participants and no cost reductions.

Og course the GOP has done their part what with killing granny and and warning that Medicare was being destroyed. We all know the fine level of health care some receive in this country, when will everybody have that opportunity?

I don't think you or DLS, or J can answer that; maybe it's not even on the Right's agenda.

You are right on the money with your "surprise" sarcasm in the title of this post, because it's not much of a surprise. They have to pay for the govt. funded healthcare some kind of way right?

-Nikki-

"It isn't a poor analogy."

Yes, it is. It is a poor analogy (for supporting a health care "public option") not because it is inaccurate in any way, but because, incidentally, how accurate it is (as well as "inverted," the "inversion" itself the sign of why it's so poor). What you have here is a public system and a private concern, and people have substantially rejected the public system (which loses money, and which is subsidized, as your own mail example reveals) in favor of the private company, which grew substantially as a consequence. (Normally people use the Post Office as a classic example of an atrocious government functionary, and consider the private UPS or Fed-Ex to be superior, and in fact, succeeding because of this difference in quality.)

Note additionally that the private companies grew due to people's preferences, and present the case as well (making it a poor analogy to support the "public option" incrementalist strategy for takeover of health care by the federal government) for rejection of the public service with the development of a "private option." (In fact, I've been on record before, in predicting that what will be fought once there is a takeover by government of health care is any "private option" that would likely siphon the discontented or others who would reject government health care, consequently.)

"the GOP has done their part what with killing [G]ranny and and warning that Medicare was being destroyed"

Well, we know how ignorant (or worse) the defenders of the "public option" have been, especially not only with pathetic defense of it, but with attacks on the growing concern and rejection of it. It seems some people simply cannot be taught, or cannot grasp, ever, the obvious facts (which is why they take government officials' word on such ignorant faith?), such as the history of "death panels" and the like in the USA (governing provision or denial of care) that have existed since at least the early 1960s, the Left and its history of enchantment with euthanasia, the history of rationing* and queues in other government health care systems, ignorance of other related facts as well, including the failure to reform unsustainable Medicare currently, and simply "paying" partially for the "public option" by taking money without planning or thinking out of Medicare (and deferring until after the next elections a substantial reduction in payments to providers, in the Baucus-legislation case). It's simpler, I guess, if you continue not to think and simply act as you are told, and believe everything the nice Dems tell you, but some of us are not merely at that level. And we can see clearly what is intended this year (the "public option" is the incrementalist takeover strategy of choice; nobody with a working brain believes the "competition" and "keep insurers honest" nonsense) and what it might mean, especially given the nature and history of those crafting this legislation.


* Not to mention the bonus example given us this year by the loonier lib Dems in Washington, with their extremism-based "climate" legislation, that includes a cap-and-trade meddling scam, which among other things constitutes a form of ENERGY RATIONING. That's probably too much for some ever to conceive.

"We all know the fine level of health care some receive in this country, when will everybody have that opportunity?"

That can be asked with a straight face of politicians in Washington and their federal benefits plan.

After all, giving everyone that plan would be much easier and simpler than what they're doing.

We've spent hours listing and re-listing actual reform measures, none of which requires a "public option."

But the lefties have never been interested in the facts, or in thinking (as with the Nobel Prize, they're too busy Feeling).

DLS
"Yes, it is. It is a poor analogy (for supporting a health care "public option") not because it is inaccurate in any way, but because, incidentally, how accurate it is (as well as "inverted," the "inversion""

Wrong as usual.

A change in having to put up retirement prior to their need has taken the post office from black to red. And by the way, UPS does NOT have to bank its retirement fund like the USPS does.Couple with that the drop in magazine and paper ads via mail, and you have an institution dying from an outdated business model. Why noy blame the whale oil industry for Standard Oil of Penn?

Why don't you blame the newspaper industry is dying for the same reason.

When will all people have the same rights as Senators and Representatives when it comes to health care? And when you answer, plese include what health insurance you have.

DLS
"Well, we know how ignorant (or worse) the defenders of the "public option" have been, especially not only with pathetic defense of it, but with attacks on the growing concern and rejection of it. It seems some people simply cannot be taught, or cannot grasp, ever, the obvious facts"

Facts like these?
Americans pay more for limited health care than everyone else pays for univeral coverage.

The Republicans lie and blame Democrats - your own post is an example.

The vociferous right who block reform the most all are already insured.

Fiscal conservatives yell about costs only when they are not passing Bush's unfunded mandate the gaurantees big pharma profits.



DLS- you really need to find a job.

"Wrong as usual."

Yeah, yeah -- the earth is round rather than flat, things fall down rather than up, water runs downhill rather than uphill, the earth revolves around the sun, rather than vice versa, as you insist. Nothing new.

And you'd be the first to moan if I mentioned again the need for the federal government to account for all its currently unfunded liabilities (as well as put its entitlement programs in order and make them truly sustainable), apply Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to the public as well as the private sector.

"Facts like these?"

Not your irrelevent details and your outright falsehoods.

People are getting too touchy again about your naive faith in the Smiling Folks in Government telling you all you have to "know." Awwww. (Health care "reform" [sic] has brought out some of the worst from y'all.)

this is no different than a bad marriage. . .if one does one thing the other threatens to cause pain. . . . .

please can we remember to elect and support adults with our nation's future and our money?. . .

Agreed and I might add...

"atrocious government functionary, and consider the private UPS or Fed-Ex to be superior, and in fact, succeeding because of this difference in quality"

UPS or Fed-Ex cannot mail your typical letter to grandma for the price of the USPS. They cannot do it. I'd love to see the public reaction of the USPS going out of business and all mail having to go through private companies that do not have public competition. The publics inability to appreciate what they have is the problem.

"private schools are kept honest by our cost-efficient palaces of public learning [...] Public schools have super low overhead, aren't constantly coming back demanding more money from taxpayers, and their results are reliably world-class."

The people in Washington who changed the analogy they were using, at least went with higher ed rather than risk the example of Detroit Public Schools, say. (Employee Free Choice Act and binding federal arbitration of future health care labor disputes? Gulp.)

"The people in Washington who changed the analogy they were using, at least went with higher ed rather than risk the example of Detroit Public Schools"

They only did this because they didn't want to go anywhere near school vouchers. If they weren't slaves to the teachers unions, they would show how competition in the form of vouchers could shape up any school system.

Of course you don't want to go there either...maybe you're having a problem deciding on whether eduction or health insurance for the poor would create greater competition for wealthy children. :) (i really don't mean you, but I have a feeling that there are people out there that think that way)

Don't want to answer?
Ok, Quiz answers: Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974,
and: In his 1992 book, "Seize the Moment," Nixon repeated his support for national health insurance, sounding remarkably like today's leading Democrats:

So what happened: Kennedy and Nixon Reach a Compromise

In a moment of bi-partisan cooperation, Nixon’s staunch foe, Ted Kennedy, agreed to a compromise deal and prepared to work to get the health care legislation passed through congress. However, the brewing Watergate scandal soon took over the headlines and distracted the President from pushing through with this initiative. With the President unable to continue to rally support, the efforts of the Unions, who hoped for a better deal under a new presidential administration, succeeded in derailing the Nixon-Kennedy health care bill.

Read more: http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.c...

More: "Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.

...At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
"Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.

...At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal. "Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.

...At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal. "Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care....At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal. http://www.crossleft.org/node/7023

Sorry for the double entries.

"I'd love to see the public reaction of the USPS going out of business and all mail having to go through private companies that do not have public competition."

Actually, Shannon, there's another example you can give that would probably work better, and would appeal more quickly to people than more complex arguments about what "insurance" means and what the consequences are if we continue with experience rating, or apply later what we obtain from decoding the human genome (including the discovery of remote genetic predispositions to all kinds of illnesses):

What about the example of public roads? ("What about those socialist roads?" critics sometimes ask.)

Roads are not health care. But if one approaches the now-removed anti-"privilege" appeal of some health care "reform" proponents, maybe it could be revisited and the public confronted with a inversion of the current attempt at partial federal government takeover of health care (as a novelty and a distraction, yes, but also worth considering): What would people think if all their public roads, or just freeways and major arterials ("surface streets") became privatized toll roads? Wouldn't that constitute the granting of a privilege?

And I'm surprised (well, given their quality, maybe not) that the "reform" proponents, when faced with growing balking about a federal incremental takeover (and failure to rescue and reform Medicare, and robbing that program to partially pay for the universalist takeover move), would ask the critics, or the GOP politicians: Would they prefer instead to see the insurance companies replace Medicare?

Food for thought, both ways.

"Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act"

Oh, he went even farther than that (and beyond merely imposing wage and price controls, don't forget).

Remember, back in the 1960s, there was not only the development of radicalism but also the raising to new heights of mainstream liberal ambitions, and it included a desire to see not only provision of health care by government, but also a guaranteed minimum income (basic welfare payments for everybody, in other words).

The subject is relegated almost exclusively to the farthest-left fringe and has been since the Seventies, but the concept is there, and more importantly, Nixon was supportive of the idea, proposing a "Family Assistance Plan." Now, many guaranteed-income proponents objected to the plan itself, but not to the underlying concept, and it remains the main point here that Nixon was supportive of this concept.

We all know the fine level of health care some receive in this country, when will everybody have that opportunity?

When we've driven the costs down far enough that the middle class can afford it and only the genuinely poor need subsidies.

"They only did this because they didn't want to go anywhere near school vouchers."

Well, I did note the unions and that health care workers might someday enjoy union beneficience.

And speaking of vouchers, that's another reform alternative that nobody dares to try. (However, they might still materialize as a way for people to pay to ensure that they're insured, especially if such insurance ends up being compulsory.)

Incidentally, for those who didn't read the report (Baucus babbled about it, but at least one politician in Washington was direct, that this was an insurance industry "hatchet job" on reform measures), here:


http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_pwc2.html

I went to a public school and got a great education... Having a private option or school vouchers will provide competition and force those bad schools to get better or be shut down.

I got a great education from public school too, though my parents had to move to make it possible. And I had one classmate who had to sleep in her garage to be on the right side of the county line.

I'm all for school vouchers for exactly the benefit you suggest: the rigor to shut down programs that aren't working. Show me a public health care option that could plausibly be shut down for inefficiency, and I'll warm right up to it.

Not sure what difference the recitation of these analogies is going to do to the price of tea in China anyway.

Back to Jazz's point, the ONLY reason the industry agreed to play ball with Obama to begin with was his promise to keep the actuarial pool intact if the industry was going to participate in taking on additional "policyholders".

The Baucus plan does not do that for a variety of reasons.

So, the Obama-mamas can tell all the fascinating stories they want, but the simple, verifiable fact is the terms of the contract got broken and now they are walking. Happens everyday in real life.

Now, if you come back with noise about that means the industry should back full public option, you will once again be confused as you have been for the last 8 months.

"[...] keep the actuarial pool intact if the industry was going to participate in taking on additional 'policyholders'.

The Baucus plan does not do that for a variety of reasons"

Aside from public rejection of any mad rush to Medicare for All (which the farthest-left critics still prefer and claim would be superior -- though proponents scoff at them, as Rick Sanchez on CNN did openly at Steffie Woolhandler earlier this year, for example; dissent is disrespected), it's an open question to what extent letting the insurers remain in health care for now (if not forever) is a matter of American custom (the friendly-fascism "managed cartel" "government-business partnership" approach in this country) and how much it is instead merely a matter of utility -- that it's better to keep things at least nominally and even to some extent truthfully still private, leaving the most headache-y measures upon the private sector while the public sector is preoccupied with that which counts the most -- control.

Any kind of "reform" will consist of heavy regulation and I still believe a House-Senate conference product will be pulled leftward of Baucus's proposed legislation. Any anger at the insurers for now resisting the Baucus effort will only constitute more that the lib Dems can exploit to this effect.

(The public option is far from dead at this time.)

@@The public option is far from dead at this time@@

Ok, I'm in a betting mood. I'll deliver to you a 1971 lime green AMC Gremlin, the pride of Kenosha, Wisconsin, if there is a public option passed this year beyond just something that possibly triggers in 2013. Should there be something less, you will deliver to me a 1947 Morgan, concours condition.

Sound fair?

Nope -- not fair to me. There's no guarantee we'll end up with a public option. But it's far from dead. The lib Dems in the House, shacked by their overreach, remain far from dead. Don't forget that there may be a burst of intelligence there and they may relinquish their insanely tight grasp on the term, "public option" if they realize someday they can achieve the same thing, just without that name, such as by modifying any co-op or state-federal "exchange" to suit their needs or wants better.

When the public option is enacted, all will work itself out. The cause is noble so the effect will be beneficial. There's no more to say. In every situation involving change someone loses while another gains.

My family and I have been, for 52 years, enjoying the best public option health care plan the U.S. government can provide---the best in the world---for peanuts or compeletly free.

I wonder why so many of you wouldn't want to have a similar health care plan.

My point is with the intense political partisanship and mistrust on both sides of the aisle these days, it's: "my proposal is good because it's from my party". "Your proposal stinks since it's from your party."
So much for current politicians bringing us together. Too bad Nixon-Kennedy didn't go anywhere, they may had a more congenial atmosphere. Oh well, if pigs could fly.

"Actually, Shannon, there's another example you can give that would probably work better, and would appeal more quickly to people than more complex arguments about what "insurance" means "

Blah, now you are just playing with semantics an attempt to talk down to me. Insurance isn't health care...yeah I know. Which is why I would rather see the health care insurance industry blown away and replaced with single payer....and they can raise my taxes to do it.

Side note again...while I would prefer single payer, I argue for a public option along with private because I know single payer will never happen ;)

At least you didn't say "70 per cent" or some other bogus figure this time who support the public option, Sil; the latest actual figures remain in the low-to-mid-fifties per cent, slightly favoring the public option at this time.

"... 55% say they favor a government health insurance plan to compete with private plans, which is largely unchanged from late July (52%)."

http://people-press.org/report/551/



Even more than this fact, that the lib Dems have been increasingly lib 'n' loony this year and that they haven't given up on the public option and blamed evil insurers and Republicans for its loss yet are why I say it is not dead yet -- the House has yet to begin bargaining with Senate in conference negotiations.


"The cause is noble so the effect will be beneficial."

Wow, the means justify and will insure good ends.

"Health Care Opponents Prefer Compromise to Obstruction

A clear majority of opponents [of health-care reform] (62%) – many of whom say they very strongly oppose health care reform proposals – say they would prefer to see opponents compromise with supporters to make the legislation better, rather than try to prevent a bill from passing.


Health Care Supporters Favor Stronger Bill over Compromise

Fewer than four-in-ten [supporters of health-care reform] (38%) say policymakers who support health care reform should compromise with opponents, while 57% say they should try to make the bill as strong as possible."

(Pew)

Which is why Obama should have never agreed to such a thing...lack of experience problem on his part. "We'll fix the health care problem and you can still make billions in profit"...yeah, brilliant starting point.

I know there is one in Germany right now. My family will be moving there in a couple of months and we have been trying to decide whether to go with the public or private plan. In Germany, the private plan cost more than the public, but you get instant access to your health care provider. Because of the extra cost, private insurers require that you make a certain income to qualify. In order keep the wealthier(which might mean healthier) customers, the public plan dropped its price for people making private qualified income.

That, is how it is supposed to work. That is how competition gives me the consumer a better product for less.

There really is no surprise here. The insurance companies don't WANT to insure sick people, just as they don't want to insure old people. If you force them to, and prevent them from cherrypicking, OF COURSE it will raise premiums. Insurance company profit relies on avoiding "medical loss," that is, paying claims. No one on the right, not in Congress, and certainly not here, has EVER presented an idea that could cover sick people without raising costs. Ultimately, the PI industry might just support the "public option" as a way for THEM to continue to opt out on people they consider poor risks. Do we want everyone to have access to health care or not?

No one on the right, not in Congress, and certainly not here, has EVER presented an idea that could cover sick people without raising costs.

Nor has anyone on the left.

"Do we want everyone to have access to health care or not?"

I think the right would rather Obama fail.

There are no health insurance experts in private industry. There are only pretenders who provide excuses to constantly increase premiums at rates far higher than even the rate of inflation of medical care. Jazz says that the insurance industry trade group can be believed. Sure they can. Just like Enron never did anything to artificially raise the price of electricity in California to enrich their energy trading division.

J

" When we've driven the costs down far enough that the middle class can afford it and only the genuinely poor need subsidies."

And in the meantime, people suffer while they wait for the right and the left. The only group healthy in this situation is the private health industry because they are free to manipulate costs to their benefit.

If wishes were fishes, no man would starve.

And in the meantime, people suffer.

The longer we wait to get on with meaningful efficiency reforms, the long "the meantime" will last.

disagree DJ. Single payer successfully lowers costs and increases performance worldwide.

You have no data points, GD. Show me a country that adopted a single payer system and saw costs fall and performance rise.

J

Your right, we were inundated by all those Republican cost cutting amendments. No wonder nothing has been done.

"Blah, now you are just playing with semantics an attempt to talk down to me."

I've been doing nothing of the kind.

" Insurance isn't health care...yeah I know. Which is why I would rather see the health care insurance industry blown away and replaced with single payer....and they can raise my taxes to do it."

That's no doubt part of the motive behind any and all "play or pay" and "mandatory participation" details of any legislation that is forthcoming -- it gets everyone used to paying, i.e., being effectively (if not by name or legally) taxed to pay for everyone's health care. The moment participation and payment is made a requirement is when the people are starting to be "trained" to pay taxes for universal care.

"Side note again...while I would prefer single payer, I argue for a public option along with private because I know single payer will never happen ;)"

The obvious choice the Dems faced now was incrementalism of one kind or another (be it Universality Lite, which is what the "public option" crowd-out strategy is, or a piecemeal "iterative" process where only portions of the population at any time are made beneficiaries, but all of them at once -- children, the poor, the uninsured, the unemployed, people between ages 50-65, Medicaid, VA, all the obvious groups of choice). The public option strategy is seeking universalism, but indirectly and less immediately than instant "Medicare for All" ("single-payer"), at which the public would recoil currently. (In no small part due to the lib Dems' track record so far this year!)

Of course, Cornyn opposes any form of governmental health care...except his own.

Great letter from a Dallas resident in this morning's hometown newspaper:

"Cornyn's great health care plan

Located inside the U.S. Capitol is a little-known medical facility called the Office of the Attending Physician. For a low annual premium of only $503, members of Congress have access to the finest doctors and specialists the U.S. Navy has to offer.

There are no additional fees. That's considerably less than I pay every month for health insurance with a $7,000 deductible.

Because Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is an outspoken critic of any sort of government-run health care, I called his office and was shocked to learn that he uses the OAP.

For a lawmaker to oppose government-run health care while benefiting from the finest government-run health care program our nation has to offer is the very definition of hypocrisy."

But, of course, Cornyn is pushing for the "greater good" for our nation