I don’t think there is a lot of honesty about the public option. Most Democrats support single-payer health care. They like the public option because it allows them to get health insurance without paying a corporation for the privilege. They hope that a public option will do exactly what the Republicans fear it will do…destroy the market for private health insurance and lead to a single-payer system.
Compromise, in this context, is making concessions that will help keep private insurers in business. After all, the primary rationale for a public option is that it will help keep costs down and make it affordable both for individuals to get insurance and for the government to run their health care programs.
It’s kind of funny that the White House professes ignorance about how the public option got to be the key to progressive support for a health care bill. We want to kill private insurance, and we want the public option to start that process. That’s our compromise position because we really want HR 676.
This is one example where a Republican talking point is somewhat accurate. But the Republicans mistake progressives for Democrats. We want to lop off the head of Aetna. The Democrats (too many of them anyway) want to protect Aetna.
were just realizing how weak-in-the-knee the Democrats are.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/19/public_option/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/featu
re
I can’t see why Obama cannot just steam-roll the Republican’s like Bush did to the Democrats with his tax-cuts.
tax cuts are easier than tax hikes.
in theory yes…but the Republicans could force their party members in line. I never heard of any blue & crimson dog Republicans shooting W’s programs in the as
What we need in order to get the public option is a “show of strength” vote on the Weiner amendment, say around 220 votes for it. And then do it again for the floor vote and send it to the Senate. And there, they can do a little “show of strength” vote and then let whatever Democrats and Republicans pull out the cots and filibuster it. When it passes, then the Republicans can dare Obama to sign his “government takeover of healthcare”.
And in July of 2010 when people start getting their healthcare paid from the Enhanced and Improved Medicare program, try to find a Republican stronghold.
Why is it the Democrats in Congress don’t get this?
Oh and btw, $100,000 in 24 hours from the netroots for the 63 progressive Democrats in the House who pledge to block any bill that does not have a public option. Average contribution $61. Just do the math Dems.
Even in a single-payer system you can create paths for private insurance through things like means testing etc.
I always looked at the public option as a way to sunset the private-insurance dominated system without causing a drastic loss of jobs in an already overly strained economy. I mean, if the insurance CEOs lost their golden goose I’m sure I could shed a tear or two, but I’d hate to see all the staffers and underlings all get wiped out in an employment environment not yet prepared to reabsorb them into other careers.
Myself, I think the private insurance companies had plenty of chances to demonstrate that they could provide quality service at an affordable price, and they blew it. They deserve to go. But my feeling from the start has been that if they went all at once it might create an employment spiral that would be too much to handle in the short term.
Frankly, those purists who think we could risk the economy over a quick move to single payer don’t know how the system works. When a governmental agency goes to sell muni bonds, it’s often those insurance companies that buy them. Lots of other reasons why we can’t just make that leap.
But a sound single payer system (especially for kids 18-26) would embed great memories into the electorate, while the same privilege for early retirees 55-65 would really spur entrepreneurialism.
As constituted in the house, the public option is something that 5 percent of voters will be eligible for. (although that number has the potential to open up due to some power granted to the health secretary over the size of the exchange) That’s the reason for the white house being caught off guard by this. The white house should take advantage because this is the tangible uncomplicated benefit that the left can rally around, but i understand their double take at the phenomenon. They paraded around the consumer protections because 95 percent of voters are affected by that. It was simple math.
They hope that a public option will do exactly what the Republicans fear it will do…destroy the market for private health insurance and lead to a single-payer system.
Speak for yourself. What I want is a public option that would hold the market in check – much like the US Postal Service acts as a counter to private shipping companies.
If private insurance companies can make money in a climate where health care is treated as a public service more power to them. I will applaud any successful company that manages to make that kind of transition. I’m not gunning for their deaths, though I am gunning for the death of their current business model, where money is made by denying people coverage.
Hell private insurance companies exist in France and in Germany. I don’t care in the slightest if they continue to exist after a public option is implemented – if anything they’ll be forced to be better companies because of it.
The only market for health insurance should be for items not covered by government plan.
Forced to be better companies? Doubtful. What they’ll be forced to do is to spend more money on lobbying Congress to prevent the expansion of the public option. That’s much more cost-effective than offering good service.
I think people forget that the point of capitalism is to offer the least value possible at the highest price the market will bear while paying one’s workers as little as possible. Competition mitigates that in some cases, but with a market as consolidated as insurance, there’s simply not enough competition.