Prairie Weather

Losing the public option means losing savings -- and competition?

Rockefeller's public option is the "strong" public option. It attaches itself to Medicare's payment rates and provider network. The CBO estimates that it would save the government $125 billion over 10 years, and it would save even more for consumers and businesses. But that money would come out of the health-care industry's pocket. The plan's superior pricing power would take customers from private insurance. Rural senators already feel that Medicare shortchanges their hospitals, and fear that this would only further depress reimbursements. Ezra Klein in WaPo

Saving the government $125 billion sounds pretty good to me. Taking away excessive profits from insurance companies in return for full or nearly full access to good health care seems like a good deal.  The Medicare/hospital relationship can be reworked, can't it?  Or do we just chuck the public option?  But the Rockefeller amendment lost. 

Later, Schumer's public option-inclusive amendment also lost.

Problem with flu shot

From the Vancouver Sun:

British Columbia is suspending its annual seasonal flu shot program amidst emerging concerns the vaccination could make people more susceptible to catching H1N1.

The suspension — which limits the seasonal flu vaccination mostly to the elderly — puts B.C. in line with many other Canadian provinces, but means most people will not have access to any type of influenza vaccination until at least mid-November.

This decision was based, according to an NPR report, on statistical studies showing people who've had seasonal flu shots were more likely to get swine flu and to have a bad case of it.  Quebec and Ontario are following the British Columbia protocol.

Getting around Harry Reid

The fact that the Schumer amendment picked up two Democratic votes should be a reassuring sign for supporters of a “public option” — a government-run insurance plan — even though liberals view the Schumer amendment as a weaker version than the Rockefeller proposal. But Tuesday afternoon’s votes highlight the tough fight ahead with conservative Democrats like Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who held out against the Schumer proposal.

The question now is whether the support shown today by at least some Democrats for the public option will be enough to persuade Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, to include it when he reconciles the Finance Committee bill with one from the more liberal health committee — which does include a public option. ... New York Times

Run Ensign up the mast. Don't salute. Just leave him there.

Schumer takes the floor | 12:27 p.m. Senator Schumer takes the floor to make the broad case for a public option …

A nod to Ms. Cantwell| 12:27 p.m. Mr. Schumer is giving a tutorial in why there is so little competition in the insurance marketplace. Along the way, he gives a nod to Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, whom he calls “the unsung hero” of the bill for her amendment on costs, which will be brought up later.

Cites the public’s will | 12:40 p.m. “Despite the massive propaganda that’s been waged against” a public option, Mr. Schumer says, 65 percent of people support it, according to a New York Times poll. “Take off the ideological blinders on both sides and let’s see what works for people,” he says. He wants to give both public and private plans a chance to work, declaring himself “agnostic.”

Update | 12:42 p.m. Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, asks: If a public option is so popular, why do so many Democrats have a problem with it? The reason, he says, is that it is not popular. “Constituents are really afraid of it,” he says.

From live-blogging the debate the Senate Finance Committee meeting on the public option at the New York Times

We need more polls like this.

Bubbling?

The New Yorker's John Cassidy reads some warnings in the Financial Times and asks whether we're at the beginning of another bubble? 

Possibly:  "The renewed sightings of exuberance on Wall Street, together with the return of multi-million dollar bonuses for traders and investment bankers, highlight the tensions inherent in our financially driven economy." And there's this.

After a slow start, the Fed did a good job responding to the financial crisis, and they are justifiably worried about the danger of tightening policy too early. But reviving the infamous “Greenspan Put” is surely not what Bernanke wants to do to begin his second term