Support the public option, Jon

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 09:01:42 AM MST

So. Where did he go? We haven't heard a peep from Jon on healthcare. Well, except for the news that jhwygirl related, as reported in Roll Call, that he - and Schweitzer - are concerned about the share of the Medicare expansion that states are expected to bear, and will lobby Baucus to have that provision struck from his bill. (And while Republican Senators have adopted that concern as their new means to oppose any and all reform efforts, it's actually a legitimate concern, especially for small states like Montana.)

But what we want to hear about is Jon's stance on the public option. Where does Jon Tester stand on the public option? Based on the usual fare we get from Tester's office, who can say?

A spokesman for Sen. Jon Tester said the public option makes sense to Tester, but Montana's junior senator "wants to make sure whatever the Senate does is right for Montana."

"Jon isn't ruling out supporting a public option, as long as it's done right so that it works for Montana families and small businesses," said Tester spokesman Patrick Devlin. "He knows that our health care system is badly broken and the status quo is the worst option on the table for working families."

We are left knowing less than before.

As Yellowstone Kelly pointed out today, Democrats have really scr*wed themselves with their lukewarm (at best) approach to reform and public policy. Hiding from healthcare reform is only going to hurt Jon Tester in 2012. On the other hand, with Democrats and independents overwhelmingly supporting a public option, seizing the issue and advocating for it can only benefit Montana's junior Senator.

Oh, and supporting the public option is the right thing to do.

And I'm glad to see that Health Care for America Now is asking Jon to sign a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he ensure a public option is contained in the healthcare reform bill that passes the Senate.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio signed it. This is why:

As we finalize health reform legislation, we shouldn't forget that a majority of Americans, doctors, and Members of Congress support a public option. Four out of five congressional committees passed health reform legislation that includes a strong public option. We owe it to hardworking families, small businesses, and taxpayers to pass a public option that lowers costs and ensures much-need competition in the insurance industry.

Support the public option, Jon.

Letter after the jump:

We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that - absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option - health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.

As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.

We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform - the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee - have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats - every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.  

While promoting more co-ops is a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public insurance program.  

Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, the HELP Committee's version of the public option is modeled after private insurance - rates are negotiated, and providers are not required to participate in the plan. The major differences between the public and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the county. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people - patients and taxpayers alike - not the profit margins of insurance companies.

Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.