Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold issued a statement today in support of the public option as a part of any health care reform package:
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Support of a Public Health Insurance Option“A public option is a fundamental part of ensuring health care reform brings about real change. Opposing the public plan is an endorsement of the status quo in this country that has left tens of millions of Americans uninsured or underinsured and put massive burdens on employers. I have heard too many horror stories from my constituents about how the so-called competitive marketplace has denied them coverage from the outset, offered a benefit plan that covers everything but what they need or failed them some other way. A strong public option would ensure competition in the industry to provide the best, most affordable insurance for Americans and bring down the skyrocketing health care costs that are the biggest contributor to our long-term budget deficits. I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don’t see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.”
Too many people think only the poor and homeless are without health care. That is far from wrong! Most small business (and I might add successful) cannot afford healthcare for themselves and/or their employees. Until January, I was a County Commissioner. I discovered that many of our county employees were not using our health plan. Instead they were going to the emergency room because they could not afford our deductable. Because of this, we opened a FREE Wellness Clinic for our employees, retirees, and their families. We should be able to save at least a million point two and at the same time provide better health care for our people.
Please keep working to provide health care for ALL Americans. Thnanks.
Barbara
I completely agree with your statement on the need for a public option. Let the president know that your constituents want meaningful health care reform and insurance company reform. These legislative reforms are needed to insure the uninsured, relieve the insurance cost burden on public employers/employees, small business owners as well as large ones, and to reduce the cost of health care.
Please hold the line on your statement, do not compromise.
Thank you,
Debra
Perhaps including tort reform as a part of health insurance reform would be a great start. Caps on malpractice awards and loser pays to discourage frivolous law suits will reduce the cost of care. This will also eliminate one of the main reasons that doctors practice defensive medicine ordering unnecessary tests to cover themselves. Also, individual medical savings accounts where the money does not revert back to the employer at the end of a year will allow people to build a fund to cover deductibles and also allow them to pay COBRA premiums when they change jobs. The track record of the federal government’s entitlement programs being run on budget and being effective is not a good one. Reform is needed but not one that empowers the federal government.
I disagree with some of your points but I do think that retaining the medical savings accounts is a good idea.That adds flexibility into the mix.
I would be opposed to limitations on malpractice events but I would support independent reviews of awards after accountability has been determined.
To Greg Anderle:
How much is spent in total annually in the US on health care, including insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays, non-covered expenses, pharmaceuticals, etc?
Do you know?
What is the sum total of awards for malpractice cases annually?
Do you know?
If you can’t answer these questions, your comments on tort reform lack any factual basis.
Who will determine what a frivilous law suit is?
Will there be a shopping list for damage?
For example if the Doctor and hospital amputate the wrong leg, will that be worth Five dollars?($5.00)
Flex accounts do not revert back to the business, they go to the government.
I suspect that you have never been faced with a Cobra bill. Cobra is an outrageously expensive boon for the insurance companies whereby you are underwritten as a single participant instead of a member of a risk pool.
What track record of entitlement programs are you talking about? Tell me the name of the program and the year it was over budget?
You like so many others are simply regurgitating rumours, half-truths, and completely false statements with no truthful facts to back up your illogical assumptions.
I can not understand anyone thinking that an insurance company is going to give better service than any government agency. The insurance companies entire motive to be in existence is to get there greedy, thieving hands in your wallet and leave as little as possible for you.
Thanks so much for posting this! (Now if we could only get Senator Herb Kohl to support the public option and stop saying it won’t happen this year!) Without even trying! I’m proud of Senator Feingold.
Thank God for Senator Fiengold, we have to have the public option to keep the insurance companies honest. I’m from Dallas, so I have no representation in the senate with Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn. This makes me really appreciate Senator Fiengold. Thanks, John
Folks, it is simply about having the conviction that helping our citizenry is more important than getting re-elected.
Most Democrats, Republicans and all Republicrats do not have the moral condition necessary to see the “health care debate” through to the only logical end–single payer.
Our health should not be “for profit.”
Our health should not be “for profit.”
Andy, I couldn’t agree more. Health insurance companies make decisions on a daily basis that can mean life and death for their customers, and those kinds of decisions shouldn’t be made with the most important factor being the company’s fiscal bottom line.