Say Anything Blog

Yesterday it was being reported here in North Dakota that Senator Conrad was refusing to comment on whether or not he’d break with his fellow liberals and vote against a health care bill with a “public option.”

This morning he was on MSNBC railing against the public option, but it’s worth noting that his opposition to the public option was somewhat qualified.  He’s against tying any “public option”‘s reimbursement rates to Medicare reimbursement rates.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) appeared on MSNBC this morning and declared—not for the first time—that a public health insurance option tied to Medicare-levels of reimbursement would be bad for states like his. Not just bad—but “a disaster,” Conrad said.

That’s because North Dakota has the country’s second-lowest Medicare reimbursement level, Conrad said.

“My state would be very adversely affected by public option tied to Medicare-levels of reimbursement,” he said. “That’s great for New York, California, Flordia. It’s very bad for low-reimbursement states like mine.”

The answer, Conrad said, (again not for the first time), is “a cooperative plan” and not a “government-run plan.”

So what gives?

Conrad, who isn’t dumb, knows that any “public option” or “cooperative plan” (they’re basically the same thing despite Conrad’s hair splitting) that had to reimburse doctors based on Medicare rates wouldn’t be competitive with private insurers.  Because Medicare rates, though they vary from state to state, generally undercut the market prices for care significantly.  In some instances Medicare only reimburses doctors and hospitals at 60% of the actual market value of their services.

That’s possible with Medicare, which isn’t optional for Americans given that we’re all forced to pay into it, but any government-backed plan be it cooperative or not isn’t going to get a lot of support.

Unless the government plans on forcing people onto those plans like they’re forced onto Medicare.  Which, believe me, is part of the eventual plan.