Of course, the title is dishonest, because hardcore conservatives would never embrace any public option, and some die-hard liberals will not be happy with anything but single payer. But with regards to the people who will vote on the bill, I think I've got a public option just about all of them could embrace.
Generally, I've been annoyed when doctors complain about Medicare reimbursement rates. Is there a law that doctors must be wealthy? But then I saw a graph posted on Ezra's blog that changed my thinking a bit. In 2005, Medicare payed a reimbursement rate of 92%, while the private insurance companies paid a rate of 129%. Medicaid was even lower, at 87%. Now, I don't want to stick up for the insurance companies, but I could see how that would be considered unfair. And I can understand the concerns of the blue dogs who constantly complain about Medicare reimbursement rates. This leads to step one of my proposal:
- Medicare & Medicaid rates can be no lower than 95%.
The break even rate for Medicare is 100%, so this would give them a chance to stay in the black. And they've payed more before-in 1997, they paid 104%. This move should placate the blue dogs and doctors. As for the insurance comapnies, they'll like step 2:
- Both the public option and private insurance companies will pay the same rate, Medicare + 5%.
This will truly crate a level playing field, unlike Schumer's so called "level playing field" public option. If the Medicare + 5% is too low, I'm willing to raise it to +10%, but no higher. The key is that they both pay the same, which means consumers will choose based on customer service and quality of service, you remember, those quaint notions American business used to care about.
The third step relates to availability of the public option:
- Public option is put in the exchange in 2013. In year one, it is available to all w/o insurance and all under 200% of federal poverty line(FPL). In year two, it is open to all between 200%-300% of FPL. In year three, available to all between 300%-400%. In year four, available to all other citizens.
I understand that for budgetary reasons, the public option won't be available tomorrow, or open to everyone immediately. But it should be open to all eventually. Otherwise, it's not much of an impact on the private insurers. And I'm phasing people in, so the health care industry has time to adjust. This is the ultimate definition of choice, something the GOP claims to love.
Of course, all of this would be expensive. I would definitely support some kind of tax of sugary drinks and foods (sorry red-haired lady in the commercial). As a fat man, I love my Coca-Cola. If it was more expensive, I might drink less. If I drink less, I might lose weight. If I lose weight, I may go to the doctor less often. That would help to lower the cost of care. Imagine if 1 million fat men did the same thing?
I think this checks the necessary boxes for all involved in the health care debate. And I think it's better than most of the proposals currently being considered.