public option vs. nothing at all

[cleveramerican]

if our leaders come to the place where a"public option" is the last stumbling block.
drop it and get everything else vs. hold tightly to it and watch the whole initiative go down in flames.
I sincerely hope they take the opportunity to get what they can.
If the votes aren't there for a public option, and
those opposed can't be convinced cajoled or threatened into support.

I don't see we have any choice but to accept it and take what we can get.
as odious as that is... to get nothing is much worse

[Skittles]

1. what if taking what we can get is worse than we have now?

[cleveramerican]

2. then we (the democrats) have wasted all this effort...

and the last six months we've been pissing into the wind.
we will look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

I know there are things upon which consensus can be reached.
and I know there are things upon which consensus cannot be reached.

we should not throw ourselves on the "public option" sword.

take what we can, fall back, regroup and live to fight again.

[Skittles]

3. if "taking what we can get" means a windfall for insurance companies

NO FUCKING THANKS

[cleveramerican]

4. if the votes aren't there

they aren't there.

we should be adults and accept the outcome.

I don't understand what throwing a hissy fit will get you.
your way hands the republicans a huge victory.
mine doesn't
that alone is a (much smaller) victory

[cornermouse]

8. No, we shouldn't.

From what I've seen, public option is an attempt to put a stake in the heart of single payer. It (public option) won't work. It will be a giveaway to insurance companies. No. We should not "take what we can get". "Taking what we can get" is not adult behavior, that's stupidity and/or foolishness.

Trying to belittle people who want single payer is not productive either.

[BzaDem]

9. While some might see that attitude as just irrational or silly, I think that attitude is immoral.

There is a group of people who will not agree with any plan that has the mathematical possibility of passing Congress. They will not accept any passable plan that provides adequate subsidies to the poor to get health insurance. They are willing to let the poor suffer more without health insurance for another decade or two (or more).

You may not feel that you are part of the above group, but you are. The reason you are is irrelevant to me. You fit the above description. To me, all people who fit the above description are equally responsible and accountable for the status quo and the deaths and bankruptcies that result from it.

[cornermouse]

11. That tactic won't work either.

I was part of the group that health insurance refused to cover. They doubled our insurance, then when we scraped enough money together to pay them another 6 months doubled it again. Health insurance cost more than house payments and car payments combined before they were able to get rid of us. You're also operating under the assumption that they're going to somehow play fair after the bill is passed and pay up. My bet is that they've already got their "modifications" to drop clients who cost them more than they pay, drawn up and put away to be pulled out at the right time to be passed. End result is that we're going to end up with empty pockets and no coverage.

[BzaDem]

12. It isn't a tactic. It is a statement.

You are free to disagree with it. I never really expected you to agree that your attitude is immoral.

You are arguing against a bill that would subsidize health insurance for poor people by saying it won't actually subsidize health insurance for poor people. Sarah Palin also was arguing against a bill that didn't have "death panels" by saying it had "death panels." Anyone can say whatever they want -- it is the truth that matters. We will be able to read the final bill before it passes. My guess is that you will oppose it even if it unambiguously subsidizes health insurance. I hope you will prove me wrong when that happens.

[cornermouse]

15. I'm a democrat.

I won't be "whipped" in shape. And you're right. I believe over time sick people (something we're all going to be eventually) will be modified and "adjusted" out of coverage. Why? BECAUSE THEY COST MORE THAN THEY PAY IN AND INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T LIKE THAT. Your assumption that insurance companies will change their minds and become compliant is naive.

Trying to link me to Sarah Palin is a childish maneuver and won't work either.

[BzaDem]

18. I don't understand why you keep saying what I say "won't work."

If by "working" you mean changing your mind, don't worry. I'm not so naive that I actually think your mind will be changed. I am exposing your point of view to others for what it really is: an excuse to continue the suffering of your fellow citizens. Whether that "works" or not is not up to you.

[DrDan]

13. your post is insulting

you are among the "adults" and those that want to fight for a public option are otherwise?

You are the mature one, while the others - those that are not willing to cave are "throwing a hissy fit"?

[BzaDem]

20. In certain circumstances, those that are not willing to cave are absolutely throwing a hissy fit.

Those circumstances are if a bill with a public option cannot pass both houses. If that is impossible (after all pressure has been applied to wavering Senators/representatives), then saying no to anything because they didn't get a public option is immature and immoral.

[DrDan]

22. even if the "mandatory" provision remains

and it becomes a HUGE windfall for insurance companies?

And you KNOW they will play it for all it is worth and place premiums for the uninsured as high as heavenly possible.

[BzaDem]

26. A mandate will only remain if community rating remains.

Community rating means everyone will essentially be paying the same rate, regardless of health history or previous status of insurance. Subsidies will subsidize those who can't afford the premiums.

So yes. I support a mandate (provided that we have community rating). Community rating is impossible without a mandate.

[DrDan]

30. why do I still have an uneasy feeling of a HUGE windfall for the insurers . . .

[BzaDem]

32. So even if a bill unambiguously provided subsidized insurance to the poor and the sick

you would still be against it, because of a real or perceived windfall for the insurers?

[DrDan]

35. I didn't say that at all

I am just very disappointed that with the majority we currently have, that we cannot reform this broken system.

Wouldn't opening Medicare and providing subsidies be a more efficient solution?

[BzaDem]

38. Oh, I am also disappointed with the majority we currently have.

Opening Medicare to more people and providing subsidies might very well be an efficient solution. But there is a HUGE difference betwee "efficient solution" and "solution that has the possibility of actually passing."

The Democratic party has widely divergent views. Progressives don't have a majority of either house. I think too many people here confuse "Democrats" with "progressives," and they end up being surprised when they find out that this isn't true on issue after issue. There's a big difference between being disappointed and being surprised.

[cornermouse]

40. Progressives are no longer democrats?

Cut and paste: "I think too many people here confuse "Democrats" with "progressives," and they end up being surprised when they find out that this isn't true on issue after issue"

[BzaDem]

44. Progressives are all Democrats. But Democrats are not all progressives.

I don't think anyone here would call the blue dogs "progressive."

My point is that the 60-vote majority in the Senate (and the wide majority in the house) is really just a majority in name only. Progressives don't have a majority in either house. This majority we have allows us to pass some form of healthcare reform, but it does not allow us to pass Single Payer. Single payer has no more chance of passing now than it did in 2004, with Republicans in control of both branches. Yes, it might get a few more votes, but not even close to a majority.

[cornermouse]

46. But it's okay to cater to the conservatives?

Because that's what is underlying this.

[BzaDem]

47. It is a necessity to "cater" to the median member of each house.

Otherwise, nothing will pass. That is a mathematically true statement. Having a majority (or a large majority) only helps to the extent that it moves the median House member and Senator towards the left.

[cornermouse]

48. You aren't moving toward the left.

I wish you were, but you aren't. At best, you're holding ground which the repubs will quickly dispose of when they get back in.

People voted for democrats did so because they wanted a clear and obvious change of direction which they aren't seeing. Not only are we still in Iraq, we expanded in Afghanistan. Money is still being funneled to the corporations and upper echelon by the truckload, of which public option appears to be yet another facet of the giveaway. Public option is the faintest suggestion of single payer and in all likelihood could turn out to be worse than nothing. Health co-ops are definitely worse than nothing. Honestly, I don't know that I look for Obama to win a second time around and the democrats to maintain a majority. You have no idea how depressing the idea of another republican after only 4 years is.

[BzaDem]

49. I'm not moving anywhere. I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the median member of Congress.

If you try to pass a bill that the median member of the House won't agree to (and everyone on his or her right won't agree to), it won't pass. That is a self-evident mathematical statement. I don't understand the dispute here.

[cleveramerican]

57. no insult intended

I'd rather have something than nothing.
I'd rather not hand the republicans a huge win

getting pissed at the outcome is a waste.

yes I would like single payer.
yea I would like a strong easily understood public option.
Its not a matter of "caving"
its a matter of accepting.

If the votes aren't there, I must carry on.

[cornermouse]

6. I'll second that.

[BzaDem]

5. I completely agree. I suspect most here do, though not as many are willing to say so.

It is hard to have these kinds of rational discussions when a very vocal group here (representing a minority of the country) continues to say "SINGLE PAYER OR BUST!" whenever we debate healthcare.

It does depend on whether or not the ultimate bill is better than nothing. If it is better than nothing, it should pass, and if it is worse than nothing, it should not pass. There are many possible outcomes of this debate that are much, much better than nothing and will make further reform easier down the road.

[quantass]

7. It's sad day when Democrats who Control Both Houses have to Compromise

Crazy dayz when the party was voted in large majorities into both houses and the white house and STILL they feel they need to compromise down from single payer, and now down from a public option and settle for "what they can get".

Sadly, if this is what it will have to be then i agree that they should take what they can get but with the caveat that they MUST hold out for parts of the reform that WILL make a difference in the right direction. Bread crumbs to real reform is better than nothing at all but it is really annoying when you have such power that you still end up doing very little.

No matter what happens 2010 democrats will lose some seats and so it confuses me why they just dont go all out and set things right because in the end it will be a positive one for democrats.

[BzaDem]

10. You are assuming that all Democrats actually want Single Payer.

That is not true. A large number of Democrats do not actually want single payer. If it was completely up to them (with no political considerations involved), they would still not want single payer. You (and many here) may think that Single Payer is the only moral, practical, and ethical solution to our healthcare system. Many people in the party and the country do not agree. Democrats are not a monolith.

It is completely expected that there would not be complete unity on any issue as large as this. Progressives do not hold the majority in either house. If progressives actually did hold the majorities in both houses and they still couldn't pass a strong health bill, then that would be surprising. But the current situation is anything but surprising.

[quantass]

29. I never said that directly. You misunderstood.

From my knowledge of how America ticks i notice that America would NOT accept a single payer system outright. However, the best approach one should take to get real reform is to introduce a bill that claims to want a single payer but with real intentions of going for a public option (a strategy if you will). Single payer will expectedly be knocked down (compromised) and the final bill will include a public option. This is how this reform process SHOULD have been approached. Single Payer stands no chance at this point in ever passing simply because of the mentality of America and the the abuse the media feeds it. However i personally feel because of that, that the Public Option is the BEST choice for now. It sets up a strong foundation for what inevitably will lead to a single payer system but in the mean time it gives America a safe alternative that fits well with the capitalism theme of things. This approach, although not efficient, is the only way for reform to actually begin its true journey for healtchare for all.

It is sad that Progressives dont hold large majorities (i know that) but it scares me that common sense too is scarce since when you put things together America is going broke and any dilly dallying is going to cost the America people and the nation as a whole. For what America is today, as corrupt and silly that it acts at times, i strongly feel the public option is the ONLY real option for America at this day and age. But ultimately this pattycake childs game has to end and a true healthcare reform by way of a single payer should happen for the greater good if America is to stay where it is in the standings of the world. God help the U.S.A. if she chooses not to.

[BzaDem]

36. I guess I just disagree with you on whether that strategy would have worked.

I think calling for Single Payer would feed right into the hands of those saying the real motive for a public option is a "government takeover." Whether or not this is actually bad, it would be perceived as bad by a majority of Americans and the media and that would be the end of any healthcare debate.

As for the fact that "common sense is too scarce," I completely agree with you. But I accept that and am trying to work in this reality. Others (not you, but others on this board) seem to refuse to accept realities that they aren't comfortable with, and I think that has the potential to hurt our party's effectiveness.

[cornermouse]

39. I wouldn't worry about it.

I suspect when all's said and done, you'll win short term and we'll all lose, including you, in the long term.

[fasttense]

14. Obama keeps saying don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect or some such nonsense.

This thing about passing something, anything, now and work on making it better later doesn't seem to admit that things can get worse too. Suppose we do pass a weak health insurance reform bill. Who's to say it wont be continually attacked and weakened further by health insurance lobbyists and Republicons and NOT get better?

If you want good health insurance reform, you have to put out a bill that at least has a hope of improving things so people will buy into it. If it's weak and useless, people will turn their backs on any reform for years to come.

[rpannier]

17. Wish I had waited two minutes before I posted mine

I think your response is better written than mine -- though we agree on point and substance

[rpannier]

16. Not sure I agree with you

A lousy piece of legislation that does a little better than we have now is political death as it will piss-off many people (like myself) and enable the republikkans to point to a weak piece of legislation as the fault of Democrats.

At some point we have to stop taking the approach that something is better than nothing.

Sometimes doing nothing is better.

[DrDan]

19. funny the difference a few days makes

Last week I was labeled as "negative" multiple times when I posted that I thought the public option was in trouble.

This week - we are willing to give up the fight and take the "remains".

[depakid]

21. "We" haven't given anything up- trollers on the other hand...

who think themselves "clever..."

[DrDan]

23. and exactly who is the troller?

[rpannier]

24. It's why many Democratic representatives don't take their base seriously

The republikkan base doesn't wave the white flag, they push harder.
Thus their elected reps fear them and listen to them.

Our reps have come to expect us to make a fuss and then accept what remains -- no matter how crappy it is

[DrDan]

27. doesn't even appear they are listening to their base

Polls indicate a huge majority want a public option.

But congress appears to be completely unaware . .

or more likely in the lobbist's pockets and

[rpannier]

31. Yep.

Their base consists of 6 dead men

George
Abraham
Alexander
Andrew
Ulysses
Benjamin

[Onlooker]

25. Let's give the insurance industry 40 million new customers

Without the public option, the health insurance bill will do little more than give the insurance industry 40,000,000 new customers.

[BzaDem]

28. How about community rating?

Right now, anyone with insurance can essentially be dropped for having the gall to use the insurance. Community rating (which will prevent dropping anyone or not accepting anyone or charging more based upon health history) is FAR better than nothing.

[cornermouse]

33. Or we could try a modified community rating?

In practical terms, Community Rating occurs most often occurs in regard to the determination of health insurance premiums, but is also be used in determining premiums for flooding insurance, and potentially any other type of insurance. In regard to health insurace it results in providers not evaluating health related factors such as a polential policy holder's state of health, but rather the state of health of everyone within the market. A health insurer will not evaluate the age, sex, or health status of a policy holder, but rather that of the market or population as a whole, and therefore will charge the same premium to all persons within that market or population for any one health insurance plan.

Where a health insurer charges the same premium for any one health insurance plan, regardless of sex, age, or health status, this is commonly referred to as a "pure" Community Rated system. Where an insurer may vary premiums within predefined limits on the basis of these factors, such is referred to as a "modified" Community Rating system.

[BzaDem]

34. My ultimate goal is that no one pay more than a certain modest percentage of their income

for healthcare. This is essentially like single payer (as far as the consumer is concerned), except we are paying private companies instead of the government in the form of taxes.

Community rating with a mandate and adequate subsidies is a way to achieve the above. If we have modified community rating, we would need to have modified subsidies to cover that. In the end though, all citizens would get healthcare for a modest percentage of their income (and not more). I would support a bill that achieved that goal.

[cornermouse]

37. That is a loophole.

Modified means more money, greater profit and not necessarily more services.

Public option is just another bail-out, disguised and or a sector that isn't in trouble but the equivalent of a bail-out.

You think people will be covered, lives will be saved, money well spent. I'm telling you that ain't what's gonna happen. I told you, I know what it's like to be without insurance through no choice of my own and its a very insecure feeling. We owe people more than public option. The only thing that will be safe from being tampered with via modifications and relaxations in response to insurance cries to Congress (which will not always be democratic) of "oh, this is just too hard, too expensive, too stressful. Change it." is to expand medicare into single payer.

[BzaDem]

41. Modified does not necessarily mean more money.

With pure community rating, healthy people pay the same amount as sick people. With modified community rating, healthy people pay a little less and sick people pay a little more. Modified community rating might happen because otherwise, young people (used to paying nothing) will have huge sticker shock. But that isn't a huge deal, because

a) the "modification" will not be very large, and
b) government subsidies to citizens will cover it anyway.

The fact that you have been without insurance makes me even more surprised you aren't for a plan that might actually be able to pass. You keep saying that a bill that provides adequate subsidies with no loopholes won't actually pass. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But what actually has a 0% chance of passing now (and probably for the next decade or two) is single payer. ANYTHING has a greater chance of passing than single payer. The fact that you keep arguing for a plan that is dead on arrival to both houses is just stunning to me, given that this is a question that has affected you and isn't simply academic to you.

[cornermouse]

43. I'm for a solution that works.

I had a very expensive child who I still am unable to secure insurance for even though the medicine was stopped 20 years or so ago. My child is on medicaid and given the limited amount of time I have during "office hours" I have unable to find a doctor who will agree to take my child as a patient. I tried to put him on my insurance and was unable to do so. I really do not see public option as a working solution. If I did, I would be all for it but at this point I do not see it at all.

[harun]

42. It is Public Options vs. Single Payer. We get one or the other.

[BzaDem]

45. Can you tell me which 218 house members and 50-60 Senators will vote for a public option?

You should show evidence for your proposition.

[harun]

50. If it comes up for a vote do you really think they will shoot it down?

The ramifications of that would be the decimation of the Democratic party and the President in the next election.

It will pass the House easy. Blue Dogs are on board with it in the House. My own Rep (Blue Dog, Patrick Murphy) has stated to me in an email he not only feels the Public Option is necessary but that he would be willing to put himself and his family on it from day one.

Don't buy in to the Corporate Medias FUD campaign against this. Only reason it isn't passed is because everyone is on vacation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

[BzaDem]

51. Definately.

The only way to get the public option through is reconciliation in the Senate. If that happens, no Republicans will support the bill. At that point, blue dogs will start peeling off. Maybe not the most liberal blue dogs, but many of them will. Some may even switch to the Republican party if healthcare fails and Democrats lose control of Congress in 2010. It might pass, but it also very well might not. If Democrats do everything they can to pass it and still come up short, they need to pass the remainder of the bill anyway for the good of the party, the uninsured, the insured, and the country.

[asdjrocky]

52. That is NOT what I voted for.

This time I will NOT put up with it.

[BzaDem]

53. You don't have much of a choice.

Sure, you could vote for a right-winger instead explicitly or implicitly (by staying home/voting Nader/etc.) But that wouldn't pull the country any closer to your views. Most Amreicans have different opinions on issues, so any specific solution is not what many Americans want. This whining is not helpful.

[asdjrocky]

54. Whining? Fuck that.

Not whining, just sick and tired of being lied to by these self serving asswipes. No public option? No money from me, no voting from me, no volunteering from me. I'll be much happier once I don't give a shit.

[ProSense]

55. Who is going to pay for that?

That's not so clever you see. Someone has to pay for maintaining the status quo if cost controls are implemented. That's the problem with the Massachusetts plan right now, they're broke. They have no built in cost controls, no public option.

If they want to keep the status quo, I propose a 15% tax on the top one percent of income earners, a 10% tax on the top five percent and a tax on insurance company profits, to start.

No public option, is not an option. The status quo is not an option.

[paulk]

56. there has to be a mechanism for controlling costs

a real public option seems the best way, outside of a single payer system. Giving the insurance companies 40 million new cusstomers, many at taxpayer expense, without a way to control cost and encourage competition, could very well be a step backward.

The worst thing that is happening is the political damage that could result, both to Obama and the party, if we get nothing. I don't, as a Democrat, want to be put in the position of supporting what I feel is bad legislation just because it's failure would hurt the President. Yet it looks like that's where we're going. OTOH - Clinton had a successful Presidency despite failing at healthcare reform.

[Milo_Bloom]

58. Without a public option, the legislation does more harm than good.

Because it solves NONE of the problems and takes the debate off the table for the next 20 years.