If Reid unveils a bill with a non-triggered PO he will henceforth be known as...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

"The Stormin' Mormon"

And if things do not work out well I promise to never criticize him for seeking too much.

(I keep thinking of Adlai Stevenson at the UN during the Cuban missile crisis. The one guy nobody expects anything from turning bulldog at just the right moment.)

[Oregone]

1. The existence of a PO should not be a litmus test for success

Eligibility criteria of the PO is important, as well as subsidy levels and payment rates.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. I consider those horses to have left the barn

Any PO we get will be a screaming joke but I have accepted that reality long ago. It will not be widely available.

But the existence of a weak PO is better than no PO. At least then people will see they are not eligible and request broader access.

It's all relative.

I favor whatever keeps the issue alive going forward. A weak PO introduces a lot of tension in the politics of healthcare. A triggered PO reduces tension--kicking can down the road.

So though any PO we get will suck I see a meaningful difference in effect on what the situation will look like in a decade.

[grantcart]

9. I agree

Any PO by definition is a major victory.

It will establish, along with the other parts of the bill that the health care system is under the control of the federal government.

It is as significant as the FDA, the EPA and other major expansions of Federal Control.

If people cannot see that basic change in governmental calculus then they are missing the forest and standing too close to the trees.

It is a wedge and Hatch has it 100% correct - it will eventually lead to universal single payer health care, regardless how imperfect it is in its birth.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Yup, I have agreed with the pugs every step of the way

It's like when Woody Allen was asked if sex is dirty and said, "only if you're doing it right."

Yes, this is a slippery slope to socialist health care.

If we're doing it right.

[Oregone]

18. "Any PO by definition is a major victory."

Ug. So the Kabuki theater winds down to a close

[GreenTea]

22. Not if there's an "Opt-Out" for states in the bill which the republicans/insurance companies will

fight to the death to get it put in the final bill, (if indeed there ever is a final bill with a Public Option).

Then the republicans will opt-out from voting on any Democratic bill anyway.

While many red states governors will simply use the "opt-out" in the bill, making the Government bill almost worthless even if the public option is included.

In which the republicans will say "see" - government run health care just doesn't work.

It's called sabotaging a bill to make the bill worthless and/or unworkable......And the republicans and insurance companies are experts at it, having been doing this since day one!

We have to keep on fighting for a Public option & NO "Opt-Out" as well as against these greedy corporate pricks to the end....just as they plan to do to fuck us!!

[grantcart]

31. Yes but now the Theater is owned by the state

A major principle is established, the federal government is the final authority on the health care industry.

It is as significant as EPA, FDA, CDC, and all of the other major advances of federal government authority.

It doesn't however mean that the struggle is over, simply that the stage has been codified and now we have a clear path to single payer. Even the best PO option's main asset is that it is simply a path to single payer. Now we agitate agitate agitate until single payer is passed, probably on a state by state opt in provision.

[liskddksil]

13. Excellent Summation

[Oregone]

14. The problem with assuming that anything is better than nothing...

Is that you forget that "anything" comes with a mandate wrapped around its neck. If the vast majority of people have only the private market to turn to while satisfying their mandate, they can be unnecessarily burdened. Mandates do not seem to have a positive effect on health care premiums because they guarantee demand in the face of high price points. For example, Massachusetts has the highest national rate of premiums with family plans running at $13K a family (this may have something to do with mandates). The private market can only be counted on to maximize their profits, not ensure everyone is covered at affordable rates, so that is generally what we can expect to happen.

If everyone had access to the PO/subsidies and it was designed to be a success, there would probably be little to no problems caused by mandates. But if that is not the case, we don't know from this vantage point if this "anything" is better than nothing.

[Aramchek]

8. would you still support Single payer if the expected cost was more than many Americans could afford?

Somehow, I think you would.
You would likely say,"C'mon let's get Single payer while we can and fix the rates later..."

Can you at least admit we are getting more than any of us thought possible a few weeks back?

[Oregone]

17. No, I wouldn't. It would be difficult to construct such a regressive single payer system

If you look at all the systems in Canada, other than BC with family premiums at $108 (waived if you can't afford it), they are premium free and completely subsidized for EVERY single person (maybe I missed another one with a premium).

It is highly progressive because those with the most disposable income contribute the most to the system, as determined by the tax code.

But if you stripped all subsidization away and made it a flat rate system paid through premiums only, it would be similar to a partial flat tax, and highly regressive on the lower classes. Most of the benefit of single payer is that it can be funded in ways that make it affordable to everyone.

Can you at least admit we are getting more than any of us thought possible a few weeks back?

Some people are finicky. I always assumed you'd get the public option, except maybe for a single day of bad news. My question has always been "What kind of public option"?

[Aramchek]

19. I know Single Payer is ideal. You don't have to convince me of that.

I also know that we cannot get it right now. You know all the reasons for this.
Yet you remain obstinate.

Why not join in the fight we can win, rather than wasting your efforts on a fight that was lost before it began?

[Oregone]

21. You seem confused

Why not join in the fight we can win, rather than wasting your efforts on a fight that was lost before it began?

I am well aware of Americans being too unintelligent and weak to fight for single payer. Its been gone with the wind, though its quite unfortunate.

Throughout the weeks/months, Ive consistently tried to engage in what I thought was a winnable fight for a REAL "public option"; something as inclusive as the original Jacob Hacker plan. The question I have constantly asked is "What kind of public option?". Its been an ambiguous, dynamic concept, which no one has been willing to draw lines in the sand over. One fight I will not join though is for a mandated private insurance for the masses and a firewalled exclusive alternative for the very few (the unprofitable). To think that I am unwilling to compromise because I won't jump on the only bandwagon in town is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

[Aramchek]

23. what do you gain by fighting against the Public Option which is proposed?

the good ol' Status Quo?

You understand Single Payer is currently out of the picture.
You understand the Public Option is our best bet.
But you are willing to get nothing if your definition of PO is not met?

You would rather get the door slammed in your face than have your foot firmly wedged into the next room?
Which gives you a better chance of actually getting into the next room???

[Oregone]

24. "You understand the Public Option is our best bet."

What public option?


Ya don't get it yet, do you? The composition of the public option is as important as its very existence to ensure it is at least useful for the situation. If it will not mitigate the regressive effects of a mandate by actually being a viable affordable choice, the reform could actually be detrimental to the country.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Keep moving those goal posts. (nt)

[Oregone]

29. Id prefer to leave em where they first started

http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf

If you think the mere existence of any public option, no matter how unusable, exclusive, unsubsidized, etc, was the definition of "success" from the beginning, then you are sadly mistaken

[ProSense]

2. Unintended consequences of a silly rumor: it singlehandedly resuscitated Reid's leadership

Good for Reid.

[vaberella]

3. Harry Reid would be like David Hasselhoff...everything crap he touches turns to gold.

This would not mean that Pelosi is crap.

[Schema Thing]

10. bad vaberella, bad!!

kinda funny though ;)

[Phlem]

4. PO A seems gone

if we do get a PO it sounds like it's going to be a watered down POS. If that's the case, the getting the votes to pass a POS public option shouldn't be to hard, even though Reid is making it sound like it's taking everything he's got. Sorry to say but I've been surrounded by Mormons most of my life and have worked for some that ran AMAZE ENTERTAINMENT. I'll never trust a Mormon again, ever! I'm actually married to a non practicing Mormon and she doesn't go any more because the of their insane beliefs. Sorry if I offend, but I've been screwed a plenty by "Church going" folk.

-phlem

[Better Believe It]

6. The biggest question what will the "public option" look like in the bill.

The content is more important than what it's called.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. I am sure it will be crud, but important crud none-the-less

In government, modifying an existing entity is much easier than creating a new entity.

Once something exists it will be there to tinker with in every successive budget.

[vaberella]

11. Thanks for the info. I think Reid is weak, but I hope so. n/t

[DJ13]

12. More like the "Milquetoast Mighty Mouse"

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. This "pass any shitty bill now and fix it later" crap will not work.

That was Clinton's excuse for NAFTA. And he never fixed it. A shitty health care bill would be WORSE, because it would likely include National Romneycare (FORCED payments to insurance corporations) and once everyone is "covered" the useless Kongressional Korporatist Klub would say there was no need to ever try for REAL reform again.

Repeat this over and over again until it fucking sinks in: without (at least) a true, untriggered public option open to all, there is NO goddamn reform! :grr:

[ipaint]

20. The public option in the final bill will be as effective as ins. companies

allow it to be. In other words as effective as wall street allows it to be.
It's their public option, not ours. They bought it.

As usual people are more than willing to totally underestimate the opponent and greatly overestimate the so called reform.

[phleshdef]

25. So is it official now?

[liskddksil]

26. Yes! Reid comes through

Now lets hope we have the votes to bring it to conference, where we can make it even better.

[depakid]

28. From what I can glean so far, Reid's proposal doesn't look like a "public option."

[phleshdef]

30. Interesting accusation considering there is nothing for you to "glean" from yet.