The Data Port

Gaby's Dog

Let’s begin with a short comment about the President’s health care address. More than once the President assured his listeners that if they were happy with their present health insurance there would be no need to change.

Happy with their health insurance?  Good Lord! Exactly who would that would be? People on Medicare are reasonably satisfied, but the rest of us would happily consign health insurance companies to some especially toasty circle of hell. It was only at the end of his news conference that he made a passing reference to a ‘public option.’ Almost a throw-away line; like something he didn’t really want to talk about. Didn’t make me really optimistic.

It’s interesting that Giffords seems to want to say as little as possible about health care reform. There is virtually nothing about it on her web site.  She was quoted in the Star as favoring a public option, “as long as it doesn’t result in ‘insufficient reimbursements’ to doctors, hospitals and private insurers.” Giffords also wants health providers to be able to ‘opt out’ of the public plan; but if they can do this the public option becomes a paper tiger. Paper tigers do not, as the President says, “incentivise” anyone.

Of course we need to assure doctor and hospital reimbursement. But health insurance companies? We need to guarantee the income of private health insurance companies? They’re the major source of our problem. Let’s shrink ‘em down and drown ‘em in the bathtub.

Grijalva and liberal Democrats get it right : In the same Arizona Star article Grijalva was quoted as having written the President ”I consider it unacceptable for any of the cost savings that you are negotiating with hospitals and other sectors of the health-care industry to be made contingent upon a robust public-plan option not being included in the final legislation.” He wants a public option that is as ‘robust’ as Medicare. —Grijalva 1,  Giffords 0.