Posts tagged private public partnership
James Adler: The Public Option: Revisted and Renamed
Feb 21st
The Health Care summit is rapidly approaching and we are being told by some Democrats, at least, that the public option is not dead. That’s good news for all Americans because the most robust public option of all–Medicare–has been an outstanding success and receives very high marks in poll after poll of those who actually use it.
Despite the fact that there are now literally millions of Americans like me enjoying the benefits of the Medicare program, much of the debate so far seems to have proceeded without any attempt to learn from those of us who are participating in Medicare, often with a privately purchased Medicare supplement. Millions of Americans, like me, are over 65 and know the benefits and truths about this particular “public” option.
I personally have been on Medicare for almost 10 years. It’s been terrific. I chose my own doctors and hospitals; not the government. My doctor and I chose my course of treatment and my medications; not the government. I also chose the level of coverage I want by determining if I want a supplemental policy and if I chose to have a supplemental plan, I chose the carrier and the plan I want; not the government.
The current debate has focused so wholly upon abstract words such as “government option” or “single payer plan” that the fact of supplemental insurance and how Medicare actually operates has been all but lost. Medicare, for me, is not a single payer system at all. Rather it is the best type of private-public partnership. The private part of this partnership involves the doctors, the hospitals, the primary payer (Palmetto GBA, which is a subsidiary of Blue Cross of South Carolina) and my supplemental insurer (Blue Cross-Anthem).
The current debate and planning should focus on the one federal program the public knows best: Medicare. A part of any reform should be what I’ll call MedicarePlus, which should make Medicare available as an option to those who are not eligible now.
To galvanize the Country in favor of expanding Medicare, the Nation’s seniors should be mobilized. It is amazing that Medicare has been demonized when the millions of Americans who have it like it and when the vast majority of those who do not yet enjoy its benefits are either the children or grandchildren of someone who is enjoying Medicare. Can’t grandparents tell their children that what is being said by opponents of a public option simply is not true?
We grandparents know that there is no government interference: we pick our own doctors, hospitals and supplementary plans or our own HMOs. With the advice of out doctors, we chose our own treatment. Going to Medicare Plus would not mean that a person would need to change doctors.
I can only imagine what Harry and Louise would be saying today if they are now grandparents:
Louise: Harry, I’ve been thinking. I think we were really fooled when the insurance industry used our conversations to sink the Clinton health plan. The insurance companies told us a program such as MedicarePlus would be bad for us and bad for the Country. They were wrong though, don’t you think.
Harry: I sure do. We’ve now been on Medicare for almost 5 years–and it’s been wonderful for us. We’ve been able to select our own doctors and hospitals. We have had wonderful care–and peace of mind.
Louise: And we have also been very happy with the Medicare supplement we bought through a private insurance company. That’s the role I think the insurance companies SHOULD be playing. Extra supplemental insurance for those who want more than the basic Medicare. But the basic program should be government-sponsored, just like Social Security. I wish the our children and grandchildren could have a program like Medicare so we didn’t have to worry so about what will happen if our children lose their jobs or if one of them, or a grandchild, gets sick.
Harry: That would be great. In fact why not Medicare as an option for everyone. I wish that that had been our message 15 years ago. We were fooled then. Never again. We should have Medicare FOR EVERYONE.
Louise: Harry, I love you.
Buffett lets public down…again
Jan 23rd
Posted by PostMan in commentaries
7 comments
The public has always seen in Warren Buffett a different kind of capitalist, an honest observer providing sound financial advice regardless of his personal interests. But is he?
When it comes to his own holdings Buffett seems to use a carefully cultivated reputation for financial rectitude to feather his own nest.
On Wednesday he came out against Obama’s proposed bank tax, but his comments were inconsistent. On one hand he’s always maintained banks needed to be bailed out, yet he opposes ways to make them pay for it. At this point, financial giants in which Buffett has large stakes — Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and General Electric — all benefit from an implicit too-big-to-fail government insurance policy. How can Mr. Buffett, an insurance executive, argue that it’s inappropriate to charge them for it?
This is just the latest example of Buffett talking his book.
Buffett also lobbied for and profited greatly from the bailouts. He invested in Goldman, he said, with the expectation that Congress would “do the right thing” by passing the Troubled Asset Relief Program. In other words, it was a bet on a bailout.
Later he mocked the stress test, which forced over-leveraged banks to raise needed capital. This was bad for Buffett because it diluted his stakes in banks.
Less well-known is that Buffett was the first to propose a private-public partnership structure in order to rescue troubled banks. In a letter to Hank Paulson in the fall of ’08, cited in Andrew Ross Sorkin’s recent book, Buffett pitched his idea for a “public-private partnership fund” that would use public debt to finance private bets on toxic assets. When Tim Geithner rolled out a similar plan a few months later, it was widely panned as a giveaway to banks.
Buffett later complained about bailouts in his annual letter to Berkshire investors, saying that government subsidized funding put firms like Berkshire at a disadvantage. He failed to note that public subsidies — in particular FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program — helped to keep afloat the eight banks in which Berkshire had a stake. From the end of ’08 through July of ’09, 75 percent of the debt sold by these eight banks came with the explicit government guarantee offered by TLGP. Without it, many might have failed, wiping out Berkshire’s equity stake.
It takes chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage.
Those who follow him closely are well aware that he talks his own book, but the wider public still believes him to be a trustworthy broker of unbiased financial advice and commentary. They shouldn’t.
Buffett didn’t respond to requests for comment.