Why I would still support Health Care Reform even if a Public Option is not included

[WI_DEM]

First, I do support a Public Option and I believe Obama should fight for it. It has the votes in the House and we can get it thru the Senate, if needed by reconciliation. Now, I've heard some people here say they wouldn't support any Health Care Reform bill unless it has the public option. I disagree. I think in the end if a Reform bill includes the following but still doesn't have a public option it is still worth supporting:

1) No Exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses or co-pays. Insurance companies will have to abide to yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

2) No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions. Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage due to your medical history.

3) No Rejection because of Medical History: Insurance companies will be required to provide coverage as long as the policy holder pays his or her premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse or water down coverage becasue someone is sick or was sick in the past.

4) No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

5) NO Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetes.

6) NO Annual or LIfetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on coverage you receive.

7) No Dropping of Coverage: Stops insurance companies from revoking coverage from people just because they become seriously ill.

8) Protect individuals and families from bankruptcy or debt due to health care costs.

All of these things are included in Health Care reform (besides the Public Option). If these reforms are made law it is still landmark and significant progressive legislation, and more than anybody including Clinton or Ted Kennedy could deliver. That's why if Obama and Dems cave on the Public Option I will not automatically be against a Health Care bill if it includes all of these reforms.

[cutlassmama]

1. That sounds reasonable to me. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

2. I agree, if we have these reforms, and there are NO LOOPHOLES, then I can

accept it as a beginning point, at least. Yes, the government will still be steering us to buy private insurance, but we have to buy insurance to drive a car, obtain a mortgage--it's a sucky fact of life that insurance companies will always profit.

[Echo In Light]

3. I see what you're getting at but find it repulsive that we're already expected to "settle" & concede

Because in the end there won't be ANY credible reason for no PO other than for-profit interests of course didn't want it, and so The People have to settle for that since our representatives are more aligned with corp power than they are the public.

[question everything]

25. We have to start someplace

We can always teak and modify it, after the loons realize that the skies are not falling and after we take the winds from the Republicans' sails.

[Echo In Light]

26. That isn't a proposal/position that I support at all. With a Dem majority, PO is non-negotiable

My two cents

[question everything]

29. Define Dem majority

There have been many threads here attempting to count heads and all came out short.

Let's face it: Congress is composed of 535 individuals who think about their next re election and the headlines in their local papers. Even the ones who thought it was going to be an easy vote, now retract after facing the angry mob.

We had a thread here about ours is a Representative system. We elect people to represent us. They way I see it, is once they are there they should vote according to their conscience and beliefs. We look at it as - you promised a public option; while they look at it as - we don't support it and we are your constituents.

This is why I don't mind them giving up a bit and vote for something that will pass now. And then, if they get re-elected that the mob has run out of ammunition, we can try to tweak it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. "Pass any shitty bill and fix it later" - the Clinton approach, just like NAFTA

And look how well that worked out. No sale this time. The insurance criminals ARE the problem. They must not be allowed to control the system any longer.

[WeDidIt]

4. so you like mandating that the middle class and working poor line the pockets

of insurance comapany executives?

Sorry, can't go down with a sinking ship like you. I'll jump this Titanic, thankyouverymuch.

[WI_DEM]

7. of course this is your response without reading what I wrote

I do support a public option but I cannot, unlike you, just walk away from the very real reforms a bill might have that will also benefit millions of people. Like Ted Kennedy (who you have a picture of) I will accept half a loaf and continue to work for a full loaf. I think it's a shame in your response to me you have to get personal and make assumptions you know nothing about.

[WeDidIt]

11. sorry, but nothing you wrote is reality

The reality is, the insurance companies will be free to do what they've always done and the working people will be forced to accept it and pay for it.

[rurallib]

5. Well I trust the insurance companies about as far as I can throw my house

Without a public option I can see those safeguards being gone in about 5 years.
Who's going to stop them? the Democrats? The same ones that backed down on everything else? Give me a break.
So I vote HELL NO!

[John Q. Citizen]

6. I'd support that as long as it doesn't include the fascist mandate to purchase private insurance.

If it does include a mandate to purchase private insurance I will oppose such a bill.

What's next? You have to buy Brill Cream? Or Readers Digest?

[Echo In Light]

10. The idea that a mandate is the sole impetus driving certain segments behind this is grotesque

Not surprising, but fucking grotesque.

[laughingliberal]

8. So, what is to prevent them from charging outrageous premiums? n/t

[WI_DEM]

12. Well that is something congress needs to address as well.

But I'm sorry I've had friends and relatives denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and I'm not automatically going to walk away from a bill that includes necessary reforms just because I don't get all I want--at this time.

[old guy]

14. Exactly what they would do.

[Skittles]

24. yup

you can have a pre-existing condition and you can get sick but nothing will stop them from charging what you cannot afford

[NotThisTime]

9. I would support this but add subsidies based on income for premium's and I would limit premiums

For instance someone with a pre-existing condition should not pay more than someone without... an across the board price.

[flamingdem]

13. Look, if Obama and Biden openly discuss keeping insurance companies honest

earth to Houston, you know we have a problem.

I will not feel secure with the proposals mentioned

AND MOST OF ALL WE COULD HAVE DONE IT WITH A DEM MAJORITY AND IT REMAINS UNACCEPTABLE!

Please don't Rahmify your thinking...

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Well intentioned, but there are no cost controls.

For example, gender discrimination: It costs more to insure a woman under our current system. The good news? Now it will cost just as much if you are male. What did we win? I fear that this legislation will only serve to increase the cost of premiums, and we will be required by law to pay them.

[WI_DEM]

17. I thought they were going to include cost controls. Look, I agree I want a public option

but I also would support other necessary reforms if they can be enforced.

[laughingliberal]

19. As things are shaping up on premiums...

Believe the HR3200 allows no premiums to be any higher than 2 times the amount of any other. However, our beloved Senate Finance committee is looking at allowing up to 5 times the amount of the lowest premium. Look for the lowest premiums charged to go up and 5 times that will price most who are sick right out of the market. Subsidies for people who can't afford their premiums do not take the amount of the premium into account-just your percentage of the poverty level.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. Like you, I would be satisified with a beginning.

The argument for the public option has been to "keep insurance companies honest". Now we need to be satisfied that the mere threat of a public option (trigger) will keep them in line. Color me skeptical.

I don't know if this reform is better than no reform. At the rate that people are being priced out of the insurance market, perhaps in another 15 years we will get what we need rather than table scraps. If this legislation passes as-is, I suspect I'll be paying a fine every year.

[Winterblues]

16. How about if the Bill raises the co-pay from 20% to 35%

That appears to be in one area of the bill. Imagine paying 35% of the bill on Top of Premiums. Doesn't sound like all that great a deal to me.

[alarimer]

18. Yes, but they won't do those things either.

Or if the bill contains those things, it will be so watered-down as to be meaningless.

I believe any health care bill, other than Medicare for all, is a failure waiting to happen. It will not solve the problems we have and will only delay or perhaps prevent entirely a single-payer system, which is the only thing that will work. Nothing else will and I do not support anything else.

[unpossibles]

20. FWIW, I agree

Also, I think that if it gets defeated, even after being watered down, the opponents of any form of health care reform will just point to that as evidence that we need NO reform.

[flaminbats]

22. nice starting point..

any member of Congress who doesn't accept these basics should lose their pay and all benefits, so just kicking such a wimp out of office isn't enough.

Let those slimes lose retirement benefits, healthcare, and everything they own...without the right to declare bankruptcy. :nopity:

[Bluenorthwest]

23. If they mandate the purchase of proftt driven insuance

forget it.

[undeterred]

27. Spoken like someone who has a job and health insurance.

[quiller4]

30. Thank you. I am so tired of people screaming about public option

and not discussing some of the other essentials of reform. I'd celebrate is a package passed with elements 1,2,3,4 and 7. I don't object to cost sharing on preventive care.

[redqueen]

31. Here's my test: would fewer people suffer / die for lack of care?

I care more about alleviating suffering than $.

[ecstatic]

32. I agree 100% nt

[dtotire]

33. I also agree

Also, at a later date, the bill can be amended to limit profits of the health insurers to a reasonable sum, like 6%. If they exceed this amount, they would be forced to reduce their premiums. This is done in other countries where they have private insurers but no private option, like Switzerland, the Netherlands, Taiwan and Germany. Some of these countries require the insurers to be non-profit.