A few days ago I wrote to one of my senators, Maria Cantwell, to check out something I'd read in the papers. I'd heard she was opposed to the public option. I told her why I support it – publicly run healthcare systems have a good record in this country, the insurance companies have had plenty of chances to show what they can do, and as a small businessman I'd like the option of buying government insurance.
Her staff's response is clear enough, but I am not sure how to interpret it.
I'll just quote you what seem the most relevant paragraphs. I would appreciate anyone weighing in on this – if not for the sake of other Cantwell constituents, then for the sake of others whose senators are making similar muffled noises.
Thank you for contacting me about health care reform. I appreciate hearing your suggestions on this critical issue.
She says the right things up front.
Every American deserves access to quality health care. Unfortunately, the cost of health care in America is skyrocketing at more than twice the rate of general inflation and millions of Americans can no longer afford adequate coverage.
I am committed to making quality care affordable for every American through effective health care reform.
As you may know, I serve on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over health care reform in the U.S. Senate. I am working with my colleagues on the committee to expand coverage to the uninsured, while improving the care available to those that already have coverage today.
OK, here's what she's plainly for. What are the merits and demerits of this?
The proposals I am considering would let people choose between keeping the coverage they have now or transitioning to new coverage provided through a health insurance exchange. The health insurance exchange would be an insurance marketplace designed to foster competition between private plans and allow for the inclusion of important consumer protections, such as guaranteeing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Assistance would be provided to lower-income Americans, making coverage affordable for all.
Next paragraph. Is this unvarnished support for the public option? Or... not?
I am also working closely with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to develop a public option that will benefit Washington State residents. I believe an effective public option could help improve access to high quality care, while bringing down costs through expanded choice and competition in the health care industry.
Then she pivots to another pet issue:
However, this will only be achieved if we take full advantage of our opportunity to overhaul America's health care system, instead of just expanding flaws that exist in the current Medicare program.
Medicare is in many ways an extremely successful program for America's seniors, but it also needs some serious improvements. For example, many Washington State residents currently struggle to find doctors that will accept new Medicare patients. This problem exists largely because Washington gets penalized under the Medicare reimbursement structure, which adjusts payments on a regional basis in a way that penalizes efficient health care delivery.
I am helping to address this and other underlying flaws in our current health care system through the MEDIC Act (S. 1262), which I introduced on June 15, 2009. This bill would shift the way Medicare pays physicians to better reward the efficient, high-quality health care many Washington State physicians provide. This would help to fix Washington State's low Medicare reimbursement rates, expanding access to more Medicare beneficiaries throughout Washington.
So, where does it seem that she stands?
And while you're at it, tell us what solution you support: