On May 5th, Governor Rendell's budget office released a new analysis of the plan to pay for Access to Basic Care [ABC], a comprehensive plan to provide health insurance to thousands of Pennsylvanians that have been going without it.
In short, the plan to pay for ABC is sound.
From the Governor's press release:This analysis answers the argument from critics that the bill does not have adequate funding. We do. Now all we need is the political will to get this done.
The uninsured do not have powerful Harrisburg lobbyists to represent them. They are hard-working individuals who are trying to make ends meet and worrying about how they are going to afford to see a doctor if they get sick. It’s time we do something for them to make their lives a little easier. That’s what public service is supposed to be about.
From Budget Secretary Michael Masch:
Critics of PA ABC have said they don’t know how much the plan will cost and how it will be possible to fund it over time. We now have solid revenue and spending projections that show that the identified revenues are more than adequate to fully fund all of the programs in PA ABC on a sustainable basis.
The Governor's Budget Office worked with Mercer, a well known and respected actuarial firm, to verify the executive's budget estimates.
More detailed analysis available here.
_____________________________________
Cross posted at PHAN website
Rendell's plan is a giveaway for insurance industry
It is unsustainable, and it does nothing to solve Pennsylvania Healthcare crisis.
To read about Rendell's healthcare hoax go to:
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/ed-rendells...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07108/778752-109.stm
Not so well argued
We'd back a single-payer plan in a second if it ever showed any sign of movements. SB 1137 has already passed one chamber and we have little doubt it will see a vote in the Senate next month. Your second article there is from last April, which is ages ago. Your first is quite a ramble, but it mostly just attacks the governors figures.
Look, whether there are 1.3 or 0.77 million uninsured in the state... either way, we've got a chance to get hundreds of thousands of them good health insurance coverage very soon. The PA Progressive piece ignores the opportunity that SB 1137 creates to cover more people in a new administration.
It also ignores major reforms in insurance regulation, like giving the Insurance Regulator authority to set rates, only allowing age and geography to factor into rate setting (even in the individual market) and introducing standard plans across all insurers. Big stuff is happening. Sorry you guys can't get on board.
---
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.
Appearance of progress
To get on board to help Governor demonstrate an appearance of progress or to help insurance industry increase their profits?
"we've got a chance to get hundreds of thousands of them good health insurance coverage very soon"
How many, exactly?
The single payer plan would move forward if not for Rendell twisting arms of the Democratic lawmakers and Todd Eachus working overtime to repay insurance industry.
Natasha,
I appreciate your providing the link to that analysis of Rendell's plan. I must say, the article is pretty devastating. You are providing a service by helping to educate people about the inadequacies of Rendell's plan and about the dubious nature of it's links to the insurance industry.
That said, for what it's worth, I think that you detract from potential benefit of educating people when you casually dismiss the notion that it's better to insure more people now and work to pass a better plan in the future. I can appreciate the logic of saying that accepting an inferior plan is a sell-out to the insurance industry and will make it less likely that more comprehensive plans will be adopted in the future. But saying that an incremental approach is appropriate is certainly, also, a viable perspective.
From what I've read so far, I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it's worth the potential cost of having fewer people insured in the future (assuming that after this plan is adopted further reform can't be enacted) for the benefit of having more people insured now - but I'd be interested in reading more of an informed debate on that topic. You seem to be assuming that everyone should either already be convinced about the reality of that trade-off, or simply take your word for it that the trade-off exists and is clearly negative in the balance. Maybe instead of making those assumptions, you could help provide a more comprehensive analysis than what you've already given us - and perhaps be a bit more tolerant of those who don't (at least yet, anyway) share your conviction that there's a clearly better option here?
Do the people opposing the expansion of health insurance have it
Natasha,
I was wondering if you would advise people to give up their health insurance because insurance companies are involved in providing coverage.
If not, why would you oppose allowing another 250,000 people to get health insurance because the insurance companies would be involved?
Lance Haver
A real healthcare solution
Lance,
Let me put it this way I oppose the Governor, who works really hard to kill the real solution to the healthcare crisis in PA.
I oppose the efforts to fool yourself and everybody else into thinking that Rendell's plan is a huge step forward.
My question is, why you oppose getting healthcare coverage to everyone in Pennsylvania?
And, please, don't tell me that the single payer is not politically feasible. This is "the chicken or the egg" kind of dilemma. You do not support single-payer healthcare because it seems to be not politically feasible, or it is not politically feasible because people like you prefer to support those whose goal is to preserve status-quo?
Natasha, I agree that a
Natasha, I agree that a medicare-for-all, single-payer system is the best. But, I noticed you didn't answer his question. Should people with healthcare now give it up? Have you? While we are at it, would you advise getting rid of CHIP?
I don't know you, but, I do know both Lance Haver and Brady Russell, and know the work each of them has done. And I am pretty confident that, as usual, they are on the side of the angels.
"The medicare-for-all, single-payer system" is not just the best
"The medicare-for-all, single-payer system" is not just the best, but the only possible solution if we consider our country developed and civilized.
The question is provocative, and I will not answer it.
You don't need to know me to understand my position which I clearly stated: Rendell's plan is to preserve the status quo, and supporting it is counterproductive. The number of uninsured will be decreased by couple percentage points, but in a few years the number will be growing again. This is what the data from other states, which adopted similar "historic initiatives" show (for more info contact Dr. Tsou: healthcare4allpa.org).
This is why I do not waste my time and spend the little time that I have working on the universal healthcare issue, so that Pennsylvania could join the rest of the civilized humankind.
In other words...
In other words...
zzzzzz . . .
Tell that the the few thousands of Pennslyvanians who woke up this morning without healthcare. I'm sure they're thrilled to know that you'd rather not waste your time working for them unless it is how you want it.
There is nothing wrong with passing Rendell's bill and then going back to work for universal single payer healthcare the very next day. In fact, it shows you are, at the very least responsible and pragmatic.
Let's forget the argument of where the best place for a single payer system is, national or state. Let's start with, how do we insure more folks today so that, while we're working for single payer, they can have peace of mind.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Twisted logic
Twisted logic. I am working for them. And for everybody else.
Tell it to those millions of uninsured and underinsured who are cut out of the Rendell's plan, that you rather wait untill the political situation is right. And let's not question anyone's character.
See you the very next day...
You've laid out the challenge . . .
To folks like Brady and Lance. You do not like their reasonable and reasoned responses.
I'm not okay with an all-or-nothing approach to my politics and policy. Over the last few years, I've learned, it is easier to be "all-or-nothing" than to stand in the position of compromise and pragmatism. Brady is correct, presently, single-payer insurance is showing no signs of movement. But, SB1137 IS moving. While it is easier for you to tear it down than to work for it, that serves no one.
Progressive politics is also about pragmatic politics. If there is a bill in the legislature that would extend health insurance to folks that are presently not covered, then we should advocated to our elected officials to vote for that proposal.
As for questioning character, a few times you have said we require single payer to be "civilized." I think we are already a civilized society and consider myself civilized. Thank you very much.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Sorry, I hurt your feelings
I did not mean you personally, while you did indicate that I am irresponsible, unreasonable, ets.
It depends on a definition. According to my definition, a civilized society won't leave 47 mln of its members without medical help, so that a small group of others could enjoy exorbitant profits.
Regarding "all-or-nothing" approach. The Rendell's (a.k.a. Insurance Industrial Complex's) bill has nothing to do with "incrementalim"; it is about "decrementalism". It will produce, a best-case, net LOSS of 20,000 insured Pennsylvanians by 2013, with far inferior health coverage. And then the number of uninsured skyrockets to to more than 250,000 -- NET LOSS -- by 2017/2018. Worse yet, it represents a lost opportunity to solve our health care crisis once and for all -- and all because the profit-first insurers and pharmaceuticals are pulling Rendell's strings.
"Progressive politics" was nothing but compromise and pragmatism for the last 30 years. And look were we've got in terms of labor rights and personal freedoms.
A sad truth
If we had the chance to design a brand new, built-from-scratch health insurance system, I don't think there's much question that most of us would choose a single-payer model, most like modeled on Medicare. But, the fact is that there are a large number of for-profit and non-profit health insurance companies, and that these companies are not simply going to vanish by the wave of a wand.
So, the idea to co-opt them into providing health care is a good one, within the current parameters. On a national level, the opportunity is there to create a Medicare-for-all system which would compete with the current insurers, and allow the for-profit providers to effectively wither away due to an inability to effectively compete with the expanded Medicare (note: Medicare receives higher marks for satisfaction than any private insurer). But, on a state level, I suspect that the best which can be managed is to twist the arms of the existing providers, which appears to be exactly what ABC does.
-Z