what I'm trying to sort out in my own mind:

[bain_sidhe]

All these posts about "if there's no public option we should not pass anything"

Ok, perhaps that's a firmly held, moral position... I can certainly see a rationale for that position, having mostly to do with keeping the pressure on...

... but, if the public option really is in trouble, the "nothing" leaves the insurance companies free rein to do what they're doing now - deny coverage or jack up the premiums to infinity and beyond for pre-existing conditions, recind coverage when you get sick because they found a typo on your application from 20 years ago, etc, etc. I know the insurance companies don't want a public option as a competitor, but I'm also sure "nothing" what the insurance companies *really* want. No new regulations, no interference with their :sarcasm: god given right to bleed their "customers" dry and deliver *nothing* for the premiums we pay.

...but, again, I see the rationale - and I believe it's basically a sound strategy - for screaming "all or nothing" at this stage...

So should I suspect the motivations of those screaming "all or nothing" or not?

[mdmc]

1. I pay $200.oo per month in health care costs right now

If reform can get it down to $175.oo I guess Mission Accomplished. I'll support Obama and take what he can get from the corporate owned congress.

[crazy_vanilla]

6. you are lucky, we pay $1405/month for COBRA

Isn't that wonderful? :sarcasm:

[mdmc]

12. That is about what I would pay for COBRA..

I couldn't afford it, but I can't afford my current set up either

[WeDidIt]

2. But a bill without a public option

will mandate you get coverage from an insurance company that has no meaningful competition, no reason to not keep raising rates, no real reasons not to drop you at any hint of illness, and you'll get fined if you don't buy it.

So in effect, you will be legaly bound to line the pockets of an insurance industry that will do everything possible to insure you get NO HEALTH CARE, and will actualy profit from it.

So no public option means we will actualy make matters worse.

[Cleita]

5. Thanks for speaking the truth about this.

Some people still don't get it.

[Warpy]

3. Since Obama is not in residence and not giving signals

I think this is Rahm Emmanuel overreaching and trying to massage the Blue Dogs and DLC types.

Obama has said in the past he won't sign any bill that doesn't have a public option.

I'm holding him to that.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. But so far none of the bills have a public option that will do anything. The House bill

HR3200 has a very restrictive public pool that the CBO says might sign up 10 million people by 2019. That's might.

The Senate HELP bill is even worse.

We haven't seen the Senate Finance committee bill but i expect it will contain the co-ops.

So where will a viable public option plan come from?


On the other hand there is a great single payer bill in the house which will be debated and voted on this Sept. HR676 was promised a full floor vote with a debate. I'm working for that because it's clearly the best bill for people.

[sharesunited]

4. Come back promptly with smaller measures which fix specific problems piecemeal.

If we get the big bill and it establishes a regrettable framework, we are stuck with it for a long, long time or forever.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. My Congressman is a die hard repuke and won't budge

on single payer, BUT I have found him to be very sympathetic towards reigning in some of the excesses the insurance companies practice. I know I'll never change his mind on the government option, but I have had a positive dialog with him in regards to reforming what the insurance companies can and cannot do. So there is some common ground, and I will insist and pressure him to work for reform and not just sit on his hands.

He's having a local health forum coming up in two weeks. I plan to study the entire bill before then and to take notes if he tells lies about its content. Also am alerting my local Move On contact with meeting info so she can get the rest of the troops organized and in attendance.

[DJ13]

8. If a public option cant pass now, people arent desperate enough

If reform fails without a public option (as it should) then a couple more years of double digit premium increases should get the point across that reform IS needed.

The insurers and their bought and paid for conservative whores may have made a tactical mistake preventing a public option because the next time reform is proposed a public option wont go far enough.

They should have accepted losing several million customers now with a public option instead of losing them all next time to a real single payer option.

[Lyric]

9. The "nothing" also means no mandate.

It's the idea of insurance being mandatory without a public option to make it affordable that's the problem. I suspect that most people who are saying "Public option or nothing!" are thinking of the mandate. If it becomes mandatory to purchase insurance, but people can't afford it thanks to the lack of a public option, then where does that leave us?

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Subsidizing private insurance to the tune of a trillion dollars a decade.

[bain_sidhe]

11. Good point

I'm against a mandate without a public option too. But as I posted in another thread, there are members of my family that could really benefit from some of the reforms being proposed, with or without a mandate, with or without a public option. (I'm thinking specficially of the "no denial for pre-existing conditions," but some of the others would help other people I know, too.)

[ejpoeta]

18. my question on this is the fine print.... they may not be able to deny you, but

how much can they charge you for letting you in!!! i wouldn't put it past them to charge people with pre-existing conditions much like auto insurance companies will charge someone who has tickets or accidents a lot more.

[bain_sidhe]

19. That's part of the reform that's being proposed too

that they can't charge you more, either. One price for everybody - community rating.

Now, if they manage to carve out "exceptions," what you say may become reality, because they'll find a way to make somebody "fit" one of those exceptions.

[ejpoeta]

20. i'd bet they have a whole department of people who find 'exceptions' to anything....

I'll believe that when I see it. You can bet they'll put some gaping loophole in anything to ensure that they can charge people with anything a whole lot more.

[ejpoeta]

17. that's exactly what i am thinking. if we are mandated to buy into the system as it is

and we have no real public option, then they can charge us whatever they want and we have no choice. sure they can't discriminate against pre-extisting conditions, but that doesn't say they can't charge you up the ass for it either. A true public option would force them to get their costs under control in order to compete. What is so hard for the idiots screaming and yelling at the town halls to figure out.... The insurance companies are charging us inflated costs because they can get away with it. They are like the oil cartel that set the price basically.... the 'competition' they claim to have is a lie.... we are choosing between companies that seem to all have fixed the game to get the most profits. insurance companies COULD compete.... but they would have to actually provide services at a reasonable cost, and they don't want to have to do that. but if we were mandated to buy their insurance and there was no control to bring costs down, we're all screwed. the only positive that i could think of which i have heard here before is that if people are mandated to buy the insurance, they won't stand for the bs. well, one would think. but we'll see... they seem to be perfectly happy to do the insurance companies' bidding right now.

[ipaint]

14. The insurance co. want a mandate and co-op control.

If nothing passes the ins. co's face a mass migration out of private ins. into medicare by the baby boomers. That is what the ins. companies don't want. The ins co's also know the longer health care in this country remains broken the likelier people will be pushing for a canadian style/medicare for all system. They will avoid that at all costs.

They are pretty much in control so I believe co-ops and a mandate will pass. 45 million new customers and the chance to create and run a regionally based co-op system nationwide is the goal.
Also that co-op system would be a perfect option to privatize medicare into. This would give ins. companies 45 million new customers immediately and tens of millions of medicare baby boomers down the road. It's a win - win for the private ins. industry. A lose - lose for americans.

[bain_sidhe]

16. OH! Good point!

Yes, I know they want the mandate most of all, but I never tied it into the aging of the baby-boomers out of the private "customer" pool. (I put "customer" in quotes because I firmly believe they think of us as money spigots, not "customers.")

[ipaint]

21. Here is a good article on what ins co's are facing in the years to come

"Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously -- a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage -- is not adopted.
The customer base for private insurance has slipped since 2000, when soaring premiums began driving people out. The recession has accelerated the problem. But even after the economy recovers, the downward spiral is expected to continue for years as baby boomers become eligible for Medicare -- and stop buying private insurance."

"...The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors."

"This time, you get the sense something is going to happen," he said. "So to stand up and just say no is probably not wise, because politically you could get run over."

For insurers, getting "run over" would be the adoption of a so-called single-payer plan, where the government pays all medical bills. Such a plan would wreak havoc on the private insurance market, and is widely viewed as politically unfeasible this year.
So the best way for the industry to preserve the private insurance market -- and derail the campaign for a single-payer system -- may be to go along with more palatable proposals on the table now, said Jeffrey Miles, a healthcare analyst and president of the Miles Organization, a Los Angeles insurance brokerage firm.

"If healthcare goes down this year, you are going to end up with single-payer care much sooner than anyone expected," he said.

..."They are interested in 45 million new customers," he said, "but the first thing in everybody's mind is preserving their right to do business in a way that can be profitable and meet shareholder needs."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7?pg=2


We are underestimating our opponent to the point we look like naive, silly little fools. Easily manipulated by the man behind the curtain.

These industries desperately need us, we don't need them. They are facing a severely weakened future, that is something to celebrate and take advantage of, not bail them out of.

[Laelth]

22. Excellent post. Thanks. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Jack Sprat]

15. What about the 1 trillion dollar reform?

If the public is going to be charged 1 trillion dollars to get private insurers to act decently and trust them that they are going to do so, then count me O-U-T!

Passing legislation that prohibits the health industry from denying coverage to consumers should not cost us a dime. They should have been regulated against using pre-existing conditions long ago with a simple Congressional Act based on humanity.

[obliviously]

23. Not!