The Public Option is Not Symbolic; It is Foundational

[t0dd]

There is a myth that the public option was only a tiny idea blown out of proportion for symbolic reasons. The public option was never going to be truly tiny, it was only going to be small at its inception. It is not because it was “weak,” it was just strongly caged in. But even the largest redwood tree starts out as a very small seed.

It is true that the CBO predicted that the negotiated rate public option in the House bill would only cover 6 million people, but that is because it was purposely restricted to a new exchange that would only be used by 30 million people at first. The CBO’s guess was that the public option would be selected by 20% of the people in this new marketplace. While I think their 20% estimate is low, it is important to put that in context–any company that can grab 20% of its market is a major player.

The public option was projected to be “small” because it would be forced to be a big fish in a very small pond. It would have major potential for growth. Progressives would have at their disposal multiple ways to increase the number of people who could have access to the public option. Dramatically expanding employer access to the exchange (something the Secretary of HHS could do without Congressional approval) is one idea. Expanding on Sen. Ron Wyden’s goal of giving people with employer-provided coverage the option of using vouchers to select their own plan on the new exchange is another route. The best solution might have been to attach a simple 12-word provision to the defense appropriations bill to allow the public option to sell outside the exchange. Any of these are very doable changes that could have completely changed the dynamics in only a few years.

If the public option was able to to sell to the entire private insurance market and just not the exchange gaining 20% of the market would have given it over 50 million customers. This would make the public option larger than Medicare, and one of the three largest insurance companies in America. Assuming the public option’s larger market share allowed it to negotiate much better rates (or even better, Congress decided to combine its operations with Medicare), it would probably be able to attract even more than 50 million customers.

The argument over the public option has never been symbolic or about what coverage a small group of Americans would or would not get. This health care fight is not about creating one new, static system that would remain in place forever. To argue otherwise is intellectual dishonesty put forward by many, including the Obama administration. The debate has been about the foundation on which we will build the future of our health care system, and whether the solution to our broken system is public or private insurance.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/30/the-public-option-is-not-symbolic-it-is-foundational/

[truedelphi]

1. Note the tremendously strong wording of our President in his support for the public option.

"Well, uh, gee, uh the public option is just one tool of many tools. In fact, no one even knows if it will be part of the final bill that Congress puts through."

President Obama, August 2009, when asked by a University Of Colorado student if the public option wouldn't force a hardship on the Big Insurers.

With support like that, it is so-o-o hard to figure out how it came to not be in the final bill!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. When it looked like the public option had a huge groundswell of support

which it did, the assholes in the Senate began trying to disembowel it as quickly and efficiently as they could, until they ended up with Schumer's "level playing field" public option, which removed public funding and based the cost on what privates were charging instead of Medicare +, so that the PO would not "unfairly" compete with the privates and force them to lower their prices, although that was the whole point of the public option in the first place.


The public option "like Medicare" WAS the foundation of real, fundamental change and reform. The shriveled little shell of a thing we were left with would have made no difference at all.

Face it. The Dems were NOT up to the challenge. They were not.

[Echo In Light]

3. K&R

[rollingrock]

4. Symbolic of what?

yes it is. the public option is symbolic of Obama's long list of broken promises and flip-flops on virtually every major issue he ever campaigned on.

[freddie mertz]

5. Right. Gives a real, "robust" public option, and THEN we can talk.

The time to fight is now.

[G_j]

6. K&R

[bvar22]

7. The "Public Option" ....

...was always just a shiny object used to distract the Peasant Class while the Corporate stooges in the Democratic Party (DLC/New Dems) joined with their ideological ally (The Republicans) raided the Public Treasury and gave it to The Ownership Class.

For a little while, I let HOPE overcome 30 years of History and began to believe that the Democratic Party was actually going to throw a crumb to the Working Class.
But No.
It was ALL well scripted Kabuki Theater to maintain the delusion that the Working Class has a VOICE in our government.
We don't.

The "Public Option" is NOW a symbol of how much VOICE the Working Class has in the NEW Democratic Party.