Dear Senator Schumer

by: davesnyd

Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 19:34:33 PM EDT

I wrote to you a month or so ago, expressing my concern that a true "public option" needs to be part of any healthcare reform.

I'll admit, I'd prefer a "single payer" bill-- HR 676 or its equivalent-- but if we must compromise, then we need what amounts to an optional single payer choice.

I've outlined what I think the simplest, most straightforward, easiest to pass single payer is here.

I received a response from you this afternoon. I think you think you assuaged me. But, sir, you definitely did not. While most of what you wrote seems ok, there is one line that got the hairs up on the back of my neck. I'll explain below the fold.

Thank you for contacting me and expressing your support for government-run public option in health care reform. I wholeheartedly agree that a public option will help enhance access to quality and affordable health care for every American.

Our country is facing a crisis in health care. The cost of health insurance is skyrocketing, and too many New York families are caught in the middle. Like you, I believe it is absolutely unacceptable that more than forty-six million Americans do not have health care coverage. Both the health of our citizens and the health of our nation are at stake, and we must act soon.

I strongly support the establishment of a public health insurance option which would create a not-for-profit insurance plan, started by the government, which would compete on a level playing field with existing private health insurance plans. Because the public health insurance option would be not-for-profit, it should require lower premiums and, therefore, exert downward pressure on the premiums of existing insurance plans. This change is pro-consumer because it adds competition to insurance markets, allowing New Yorkers and all Americans one more choice of affordable and comprehensive health insurance.

Too many Americans are either uninsured or underinsured and Congress must act soon to provide the necessary catalyst we need. The Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member, is working with all stakeholders in the health care community to develop a strong bill that can help solve our current health crisis.

I'll agree that I agree with most of what you've written. But not all.

So what am I objecting to? What has me so concerned? It's this line here:

I strongly support the establishment of a public health insurance option which would create a not-for-profit insurance plan, started by the government, which would compete on a level playing field with existing private health insurance plans.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Maybe I'm being too concerned.

Or maybe I am showing the effects of feeling like my interests have been sold out too often by the Democrats who represent me.

But that line has the hair up on the back of my neck, Senator.

Because that doesn't sound like what I consider to be a true public option. What do I mean when I say that? It's simple: Medicare. I mean, give me the ability to buy into a proven system that works and that isn't going anywhere. I mean, allow us all to participate in a system whose participants are-- by and large-- pretty content. I mean, let me choose a system that at least does some cost containment, provides broad benefits and options of service providers, and isn't going to do me wrong.

Your definition of public option-- the one above-- sounds remarkably like what others are calling "co-ops".

That isn't a true public option, Senator. Let's stop pretending it is.