Why is Sen. Kent Conrad Opposing Real Health Care Reform?

How reform with a public option is good for North Dakota

To download this report in PDF format, click here.

Last week, Senator Kent Conrad voted twice against giving North Dakota families the choice of a public health insurance plan. Responding to criticism from North Dakota MoveOn members, he claimed the public option is "not in the best interest of North Dakota."¹

But the facts, as detailed in the attached reports, tell a very different story: North Dakota desperately needs Congress to pass a health care reform bill that includes a strong public health insurance option—the key to lowering skyrocketing health care costs and expanding access to affordable, high-quality care.

1. North Dakota is facing a severe health care crisis.

• There are 74,000 North Dakotans without insurance coverage—12% of the state's population.²
• Premiums for the average North Dakota family are projected to rise from $11,624 to $19,835 in the next ten years.³
• North Dakota hospitals report spending $74.9 million annually in uncompensated care for patients without insurance⁴—and the uninsured will cost the North Dakota economy as much as $330 million this year in productivity losses.⁵

2. Real health care reform with a strong public health insurance option will save money for North Dakota families, small businesses, and hospitals.

An analysis of legislation being considered in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, which includes a strong public health insurance option, shows that it would:

• extend coverage for 58,000 North Dakotans who currently lack health insurance, or 78% of the currently uninsured;⁶
• offer tax credits to up to 18,500 small businesses in North Dakota to help pay for employees' health insurance;⁷
• dramatically reduce the costs for uncompensated care for North Dakota hospitals—by at least $37.5 million per year, according to one conservative estimate.⁸

3. Research shows that only a health care system with a public option will work to solve the crisis facing rural Americans.

As the Center for Rural Affairs reports:

A system that relies on private, employer-based insurance does not provide effective alternatives for many rural uninsured. Rural areas already have lower rates of employer-provided coverage and the rural uninsured have weaker connections to formal employment; for example, the rural uninsured are more likely to be families without any full-time workers or to be self-employed. The rural uninsured also tend to have lower family incomes; nearly 60 percent of uninsured rural adults have income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $42,400 for a family of four under the 2008 guidelines) compared to half of urban uninsured.

Therefore, a system that relies on costly private insurance and attempts to strengthen employer-provided insurance, no matter how regulated or reformed, will be irrelevant to a large number of rural people. The alternative espoused by many is to pour massive government-funded subsidies for low-income individuals and families and small businesses into private coverage that has resulted in inadequate coverage and medical debt for many rural individuals and families.⁹

4. The public health insurance option is the best way to lower skyrocketing health care costs.

• According to the Congressional Budget Office, current legislation with a public option will be fully paid for over ten years and will not add a penny to the deficit.¹⁰
• The public plan will be paid for by health insurance premiums, not taxpayers. Subsidies would go directly to individuals and families who can use them to select the plan they want.¹¹
• CBO estimates that premiums for a public health insurance plan would be about 10% less than premiums for private insurance.¹²

In short, the public health insurance option will lower health care costs and offer more affordable, high-quality choices for North Dakota families, individuals, and small businesses. But Big Insurance and HMOs are afraid of competition—so they're spending nearly $5 million per week fighting off health care reform.¹³

MoveOn members in North Dakota continue to be disappointed in Sen. Conrad for siding last week with special interests to oppose real reform with a public option.

Sources:

1. "Statement from Senator Kent Conrad on MoveOn.org Rally for Public Option," Office of Sen. Kent Conrad, October 1, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=84814
2. "Benefits of America's Affordable Health Choices Act in North Dakota," House Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 2009. (Attached)
3. "Why North Dakota Needs Health Reform: By the Numbers," Center for American Progress, July 31, 2009. (Attached)
4. "House Health Reform Legislation Will Save Millions of Dollars for Hospitals in North Dakota," Health Care for America Now, September 2009. (Attached)
5. "Why North Dakota Needs Health Reform: By the Numbers," Center for American Progress, July 31, 2009. (Attached)
6. "Benefits of America's Affordable Health Choices Act in North Dakota," House Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 2009. (Attached)
7. Ibid.
8. "House Health Reform Legislation Will Save Millions of Dollars for Hospitals in North Dakota," Health Care for America Now, September 2009. (Attached)
9. "Why Rural America Needs a Public Health Insurance Plan Option," The Center for Rural Affairs, July 2009. (Attached)
10. "CBO Scores Confirm Deficit Neutrality of Health Insurance Reform Bill," Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, July 18, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51830
11. "CBO: A Strong Public Plan Saves Lots of Money," The Washington Post, September 25, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=84797
12. "Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737
13. Letter to Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Congressional Budget Office, July 14, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=84763
14. "Insurance and HMO Industries Spend Nearly $700,000 Per Day to Kill Health Care Reform Measures," Public Campaign Action Fund, September 15, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=84720