Should a public health insurance plan be offered as part of national health care reform legislation?
The House and Senate health care reform bills each are around 2,000 pages long. The public health insurance option fills less than 15 pages in each bill, but is making headlines and stirring heated debate between Democrats and Republicans, and among Democrats in both chambers.
In both the House and Senate versions, the so-called "public option" is a proposed health insurance plan offered by the U.S. federal government. The idea is that if a government-run option were offered to compete with private insurers, it could help keep costs in check and ensure quality. It would compete with similar private insurance plans in a newly-created Health Insurance Exchange or marketplace, from which individuals, families and small businesses could buy health insurance that meets a minimum federal standard. Those covered by other employer plans or state insurance plans such as Medicare would not be eligible for coverage from the exchange and could not obtain this form of federal health insurance. The federal government's health insurance plan would be financed by premiums with no subsidy from the government. The Senate version would allow states to opt out of the federal program.
Should a public health insurance plan be offered as part of national health care reform legislation?
Resources:
The Kaiser Family Foundation's Side-By-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals
Pro-Publica's ongoing coverage
Forum with Michael Krasny: Senate Committee Passes Health Care Bill (Oct. 14, 2009)
The California Report: The Future of Insurance Age Rating (Oct. 27, 2009)
How will the 32 percent U.C. tuition increase affect you?
As I post this question, the UC regents are meeting to vote on a proposed 32 percent hike in the cost of a University of California education. UC President Mark Yudof had recommended increasing annual tuition to $10,302 next year to help close a $535 million budget gap. Responding to more than $1 billion in state funding cuts since last year, the UC recently let go almost 2,000 employees, cut faculty pay through furloughs and reduced the number of courses offered to students. The new fees are expected to generate more than half a billion dollars, and allow the UC to restore some of the most painful cuts.
Students and parents (not to mention faculty and staff) are understandably dismayed. Angry protests took place at several UC campuses around the state, and supporters joined in at California State University campuses, which also face severe reductions. The impact of the state’s fiscal crisis on its lauded college and university system is leading some Californians to question whether its quality and accessibility can be sustained.
Are you a student, or parent of a student? How will the 32 percent tuition increase affect you or your family?
Have you driven the S-curve, and if so did it feel safe to you?
More than 40 accidents have taken place on the Bay Bridge since the S-curve opened Labor Day weekend as part of a temporary bridge bypass. Some critics assert the S-curve is too sharp to be safe for motorists, but CalTrans says it is safe if drivers follow the 40 mph speed limit.
Concerns about its safety continue to plague drivers and CalTrans. The fatality of a big-rig driver on Monday resulted in a lawsuit against the transit agency, which recently posted new speed limit warnings to encourage slower speeds and repainted the guard rails with a highly reflective paint. Late Wednesday night and Thursday morning, the California Highway Patrol handed out more than 35 tickets as it stepped up speed limit enforcement.
Have you driven the S-curve? If so, what were your impressions? Did it feel safe to you?
Would you support a bond request to finance a new state water plan?
This week the state legislature and the governor found enough common ground to agree in principle on a group of long awaited and much negotiated water bills.
As important as that step was according to Dr. Peter Gleick of the non-partisan Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank, there's still a long way to go. Dr. Gleick is a well-respected water expert. This is what he had to say on his SFGate blog:
"Despite the happy face being put on by some of the bill's supporters, including Governor Schwarzenegger, I doubt anyone is truly happy with the end result. Perhaps that's too much to expect for a topic as complex as California water and for a bill that tries to do so much at once. I'm certainly not happy, but I believe there was a (mostly) good faith effort on the part of the governor and the legislators and all the other water interest groups to try and produce something."
»Read Dr. Peter Gleick's full assessment of the plan including what issues remain unanswered with the package of bills. (at sfgate.com)
Based on Gleick's comments, and San Jose Mercury News reporter Paul Rogers' report on This Week, would you support an estimated eleven billion dollars in water bonds on next November's ballot to finance a new state water plan?