Democrats Risk Electoral Disaster If They Drop the Public Option

[depakid]

The public option offers the only means for a reform to be quickly implemented and to demonstrate a beneficial effect for the people by 2010 and 2012.

From the start, the health-reform debate has been about money – who will get the best break and who may have to pay more. That is why the issue of the public option, a less expensive government-run insurance plan, has been so central to both the policy and political debates.

Indeed, if the Democrats abandon the public option for the sake of passing a bill like the one that came out of the Senate Finance Committee, they may be courting electoral disaster once voters grasp that they will have to wait years for the law to be implemented and then that it could lead to higher costs for much the same unpopular private insurance plans.

The public option offers the only means for a reform to be quickly implemented and to demonstrate a beneficial effect for the people by 2010 and 2012. It has the potential for reducing costs, especially for small businesses and individuals who are now being soaked by private insurers or denied coverage.

After assessing the five pieces of legislation that have cleared different committees of Congress, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the nation would get the most savings on health-care costs from a public option tied to Medicare rates. Such a version, which is included in two of the House bills, would save an estimated $110 billion over 10 years.

<snip>

Early in the congressional battle, Republicans cited an industry-sponsored study by the Lewin Group, projecting that the inclusion of a public option could lead to the defection of 119 million Americans from private insurance to the government-run plan. “As many as 119 million Americans would shift from private coverage to the government plan,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote in a column for Politico.com. That migration, Grassley said, would “put America on the path toward a completely government-run health care system. … Eventually, the government plan would overtake the entire market.”

So, to protect the interests of the insurance industry, congressional Republicans – and some conservative Democrats – went to work killing the public option. Behind the scenes, the industry even helped organize angry protests at “town hall” meetings to pressure members of Congress to back away from the government-run alternative.

In essence, President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress must now decide whether they will take on the industry (and a Republican Senate filibuster) or whether they will take on the role of arm-twisters for the for-profit insurers.

More: http://www.alternet.org/story/143343/democrats_risk_electoral_disaster_if_they_drop_the_public_option?page=entire

This is all pretty obvious to even the casual observer. What ought to be equally obvious is that a "do nothing" option until sometime in 2013 will do nothing for the Democrats 2010 or 12.

[blm]

1. Parry should be frontpaged here....when he speaks, citizens owe it to themselves to listen.

.

[Uben]

2. What the PO means to me......

...if there is no PO, there will be no money flowing to the Dems from my pocket. I donated during the primaries and the GE to get them a majority we could work with. If they are going to repay me with HCR with no PO, they had better look elsewhere for cash!
We know they can pass a bill with a PO in reconcilliation if they will. Trying to appease the right and the Blue Dogs means zip to me....they had better concentrate on appeasing people like me....you know, the ones who send in the money when they need it.

I am not alone in these sentiments. Just about every dem I talk to feels the same way. We want results. If we can't get the PO done by the end of the year, take what time it takes to get it. It is by far the most important thing on people's minds and will give the dems the best return.

[blue_onyx]

6. Not only would no money flow from me to the Dems

they, including Obama, wouldn't get my vote. Passing a bad health care bill, just for the sake of passing something, will indeed lead to disaster for the Democrats.

[msongs]

3. the ultimate in bipartisanship - giving voters reasons for voting repub instead of dem nt

[wroberts189]

4. And it should be obvious to them. KNR nt.

[Laelth]

5. Democrats Risk Electoral Disaster If They Pass Any of the Stinking Bills Now on the Table.

Each and every one contains the individual mandate. Each and every one subsidizes the vampiric health insurance industry. These plans are insane, and we (as a Party and as a Country) will suffer mightily if any of them (or any version of them) pass.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to by houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[eridani]

7. Here's a clue. Even with a public option we get an electoral disaster

That's because it won't kick in until 2013. That is two election cycles during which we have to explain to people why health care continues to suck big time until then. An easy way out? Open Medicare enrollment to everybody.

[uponit7771]

8. They can make provisions in between time but yeah, once HCI goes up next year dems better have an...

...explanation of how sucky the HCIC's are.

[eridani]

9. There is an obvious fix

Open Medicare enrollment to anybody.

[joeycola]

11. Dean is pushing for that and he wants it by next July although

I think he limited it to age 50. His proposal has not gotten much press.

[LatteLibertine]

10. Yep

Even if the PO goes in some of these changes won't hit until 2013. I'd say allow people to get into medicare this year.