The Non-Public Public Option
One quasi-hybrid insurance plan, however, has long tantalized policy makers as a potential model for expanding insurance coverage, and in recent days Democratic negotiators have returned to it as perhaps the last best hope of a deal: the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or F.E.H.B.P., which provides insurance coverage to more than eight million federal workers, including members of Congress and their dependents.
A team of 10 senators, tapped by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to fashion a last-ditch deal on the public option, is now focusing on the federal employees’ plan as a blueprint for a solution. The goal would be to provide a menu of private, nationwide insurance plans, and for the Office of Personnel Management to oversee them, conducting the same type of negotiation over benefits and premium prices that it does for federal workers.
F.E.H.B.P. offers federal workers an array of different private insurance plans, including fee-for-service plans, with preferred provider networks and lower cost HMOs. Several of the plans are national in scope — the most popular is a national Blue Cross plan — and benefits are portable, from state to state, and usually can be carried into retirement.
An easy-to-use Web site serves as a portal for federal employees looking to compare the plans available to them.
Although the plans are all private, the fact that the program is regulated by legislation, overseen by a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management, and serves federal workers gives it the aura of public insurance even though it is not public insurance. And giving many Americans the same coverage as members of Congress is a politically potent — and appealing — concept for both lawmakers and the people they serve.
There’s much, much more to the NYT Prescriptions‘ post than the preceding excerpt — including a look at the drawbacks to this alternative — and I’d encourage everyone to give the entire post a comprehensive, open-minded read. We could very well end up with something like this.
In the meantime, three immediate, markedly unprofound reactions …
1. What took Congress so long to consider this alternative?
2. I had no idea the federal government employed 8 million people, which I’m estimating is somewhere around 3 percent of the working-age population.
3. Whatever shape the final adaptation of this program might take, it needs a better (shorter) acronym than F.E.H.B.P.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “The Non-Public Public Option”
What took Congress so long to consider this alternative?
Indeed. It may not be a perfect plan but compared to what's been offered to date it is far superior on so many levels :
1.Simplicity vs. the boondoggle aspect and ridiculously long legalistic bills that have been introduced with various forms of public option;
2. The possibility of actual bipartisan support since this isn't far from the GOP proposals to allow purchase of insurance across state lines to increase competition in the market.
3. The lack of suspicion of ulterior Trojan horse motives since this doesn't bear the same characteristics as a public option which would 'compete' and potentially drive private insurers out of business (which many ardent proponents of public option actually admit is the real long term goal, to get to single payer eventually.)
4.The fact that Congress would in fact be implementing the same plan options for every American as they themselves enjoy- rather than creating a plan that none of them want to opt into.
Why, one would almost wonder if the reasons that Congress hasn't gotten to this sooner might be that they're goals aren't the same as what ordinary citizens see as real reform, and maybe they do have those ulterior motives that many suspect. Nah, it couldn't be though, could it?
“Why, one would almost wonder if the reasons that Congress hasn't gotten to this sooner might be that they're goals aren't the same as what ordinary citizens see as real reform, and maybe they do have those ulterior motives that many suspect. Nah, it couldn't be though, could it?'
Nail on head award for today.
This is definately a more reasonable approach. The main issue is still medical costs rather than heath insurance, but this does go after the healthcare side.
It sounds a lot better than what they've been offering.
The question is why it took so long, and it's hard to say for certain — the explanations include refusal to consider alternatives, inability to conceive alternatives, and confusion arising from conflicts among the Democrats and from special interests.
There's no reason that this idea wasn't seriously considered before, or the Medicare-Medicaid alternative now being thought of (complete with “age 55″ age-old gimmickry), or the other examples of changes that could have been sought that I and other users have listed time after time after time.
It could be they perceive that they're utterly failing (which doesn't seem so to me), so they're desperate now and willing to force themselves to think.
That's in the Senate, at least. Now what will the House do at conference time?
[...] One quasi-hybrid insurance plan, however, has long tantalized policy makers as a potential model for expanding insurance coverage, and in recent days Democratic negotiators have returned to it as perhaps the last best hope of a deal: the Federal…Read Original Story: The Non-Public Public Option – The Moderate Voice [...]
[...] One quasi-hybrid insurance plan, however, has long tantalized policy makers as a potential model for expanding insurance coverage, and in recent days Democratic negotiators have returned to it as perhaps the last best hope of a deal: the Federal…Read Original Story: The Non-Public Public Option – The Moderate Voice [...]