I would prefer the Democratic party rally around a public option.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

If you like your current insurance policy, whether you are self insured or are insured through your employer, you can keep it. If you want to purchase a government plan , i.e. the public option you can.

I would allow employers to offer a government plan to their employees.

By offering a public option based on your ability to pay while allowing people to buy a private or employee sponsored plan if they desire we get to allow people to choose the plan they want while achieving universal coverage. Everybody wins and is happy.

[Lint Head]

1. The profit needs to be removed from sickness and death.

Of course people need to make a living but the corporate standard of increasing production every quarter by insurance companiers should not include life and death situations.

I have personal experience from the inside of health insurance. I did not sell it. I was involved on the over payment fraud side of health care.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Then you can buy a government plan.

[shenmue]

3. I like that too

[LonePirate]

4. Medicare for All as a public option will eventually lead to single payer via consumer choice.

Put the Medicare for All plan on the exchanges and also allow employers to buy in if they wish. Over time, due to smaller price increases and name recognition, it will become the dominant and then only health insurance provider for America apart from pricy specialized private plans. Single payer status and subsequent cost controls are achieved via the free market and the exit of competitors.

[Expecting Rain]

5. I think a public option is the next logical step forward...

it would provide much-needed competition to private insurance, it would give people an opportunity to "test" public insurance, and it would give the public healthcare bureaucracy an opportunity to grow at a reasonable rate (vs massive overnight changes).

IMO our best path. If people like the public option then support of single payer would only grow.

[genxlib]

6. I agree

But I think the ideas can go together.

The "Public Option" can be a buy into the Medicare system. It would be the easiest and most cost-effective way of creating a public option.

Worst case, it would strengthen the ACA by providing an alternative and pricing competition. Best case, it could be an easier transition to Medicare-for-All as it out-performed other options.

At the very least, I would like to see anyone over 50 eligible to buy into Medicare. It would free up many people to retire at their own pace instead of waiting for Medicare.

Along with all of this, we need to continually assess the Medicare reimbursement rates to ensure that there are enough Doctors willing to accept the additional patients.

[Gothmog]

7. I agree

[Nanjeanne]

8. Costs will go up. Sick ppl will buy into the

Public option and it will become a high risk pool. Medicare for all gives enough shared risk to keep costs down. Ppl will always have options to buy extra stuff from private insurers if they want to cover elective options.

[SaschaHM]

9. We're going to wind up with a hybrid system of some sort.

Unless we can somehow elect 60 solidly pro-choice Democrats in the Senate and a House majority of pro-choice Dems, I don't see any system where the government has to pay for family planning services getting through. Whether it is brought down by Republicans who object to the government paying for abortions and birth control (like it does in most SP countries) or Democrats who thinks it is ridiculous and unfair for women to shoulder these costs while every other necessary medical procedure is paid for by the government, is anyone's guess.

That's why I found the whole resistance to insisting on being pro-choice from certain segments perplexing. Obamacare was nearly brought down by pro-life Dems and it didn't do a fraction of what SP is going to have to do in regards to family planning.