The Public Option Sham

[timzi]

I'm going to try to paraphrase Rachael Maddow's description of the kind of public option being considered:
1. It would only be available to some of those without insurance
2. It would not be available to those with insurance or those without in states that opt out
3. The overwhelming majority of Americans will not have a public option within the next 7 years.

Would someone out there tell me that it isn't so? Please?

IF this is accurate - and I trust Rachael a lot -
1. This is a 90% victory for the Insurance Lobby & the Right. Obama has failed to assert himself on
THE benchmark issue with a Democratic congressional majority that may not again exist for decades.
2. Mr Obama can kiss my ass. I HAD to vote for him but I didn't have to contribute. Won't make
that mistake again.

If this passes they will try to convince us of how far we've come. While the rest of the industrialized
world laughs at us. Not to mention the insurance companies.

This absolutely SUCKS.

[SpartanDem]

1. That's only the Senate version

as it stands now.

[Armstead]

2. Unless it gets changed a lot......It absolutely SUCKS

I find it unbelievable that the Democratic legislators and Obama simply put in
The only explanation is that they are twisting like pretzels trying to placate the insurance industry while pretending to be doing something for the people.

[Garam_Masala]

14. Why must our politicians always prostitute themselves to the insurance

industry? How many extra votes do they think they will get
in the next election because they passed laws to benefit the
insurance cabal?

[global1]

3. Help Me Here - There Is Still Going To Be A House Bill - Right? - And Nancy Pelosi.......

keeps saying that the house bill will contain a strong public option. As far as I'm concerned - this is not over yet. So don't give up. I'm thinking that this Senate version is drafted such - so that it can get through the Senate.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but don't the House and Senate bills have to come together at some point?

Won't those deficiencies get taken care of before it gets signed into law?

We - the American Public - will have another chance to e-mail, call and write our Congressmen, Senators and the President - to make sure that they shore this bill up. Don't give up yet.

[Thrill]

4. They're just bringing it to the floor. There will be several amendments added.

.

[patrice]

5. Maybe President Obama wants a new half-of-a-Congress in 2010.

It does suck, but your analysis of President Obama's role appears kind of selective.

It is possible that he wants to know if we want a real Public Option (and Progressive solutions on OTHER vital issues) strong enough to throw the bums who gave us this piece of shit out. If we don't want it strong enough to do that, what, exactly, can he do about that? Is he supposed to go through this bullshit for EVERY issue, or are we going to give him a Congress that will do the right things?

[LooseWilly]

13. Ahh, right. A mere 60 seat (well 58 + 2) Super Majority isn't enough...

It is up to the public to give Obama (who certainly hasn't gone out on any limbs for any public options) a Super Duper 80 seat majority in the Senate? Nevermind that that will mean that only the MOST conservative states will still be electing Republicans... and Nevermind that that will mean that Obama will have to make concessions to some absurdly conservative Republicans in order to sell his "bi-partisanship"... and as a result the end bills will probably end up looking even more conservative than the current HCR bills...

The point is that Obama is not to be held responsible for any perceived lack of action on his part. Clearly, if you perceive a lack of action on Obama's part, then it is merely a reflection of your own lack of action... which clearly indicates that you suck.

[patrice]

29. "you" = me? Hey, I was responding to the OP who was saying that about O.

[apnu]

31. Well it sure isn't enough for Reid...

Who only moves when he's clubbed over the head with overwhelming polls, and then he proceeds at a glacial pace. Plus Obama's instance on having a Republican in there isn't helping either.

I say they should just pass the fucker with the 60 votes, and then own the bill for good or ill. I'm sick of chicken-shit Democrats. Stand up you bastards for what's right!

[Garam_Masala]

17. Nope...Rahm hand picked the Dem candidates in 2008

who were mostly all centrists. He did that so there
would be a democratic majority in congress. And therefore
I am forced to conclude this is just a charade to pacify
the progressive left that they (politicians) tried but just could not
get enough votes for a robust PO.

[joeycola]

22. And taxing the hign ended (better per the Unions) seems to in the plan also...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603488_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603450

[geek tragedy]

6. You're right. We shouldn't have passed any reform without any

public option whatsoever.

Freaking purists--would rather complain than solve problems.

[Skittles]

9. no

we should have a REAL PUBLIC OPTION not some fucking piece of shit symbolic bone tossed at us

[joeycola]

21. ah, name-callling with nothing else to add.

[Teaser]

26. Hell, I'll do that for free.

.

[geek tragedy]

27. If the glove fits. The Party of No includes leftwing DU'ers too.

If they can't get a perfect bill, they want the problem to be ignored.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. What you describe is pretty much what I have come to expect

from the "largess" of anyone who holds all the card.

[Skittles]

8. it's what I aways expected

a symbolic bone tossed to progressives and a wet dream for insurance companies

[ProSense]

10. This is stupid. The opt out has nothing to do with how robust a public option will be. n/t

[timzi]

12. Most Would Have No Public Option...Got Nothing To Do With "Robust".NT

[MarjorieG]

11. Industry had claws in/arrangements before we got Obama. With opt-out should be easier to tear down

firewalls about who is covered and Medicare + 5 rates, but insurance companies still rule. Just say don't like it, opt out, but GOP opposition gives unrealsitic numbers of who would take it, prompting a 'let's save the companies' knee-jerk. We'll see....

[Oregone]

15. Wyden's Free Choice Admendment would vastly improve the PO and open it up to everyone

Strangely, the Usual Suspects here oppose it as much as they support mandates.

Something is wagging the dog, DU

[PBS Poll-435]

16. Hidden Profile? Check. Mr Obama (sic) can kiss my ass? Check. Screwn in 2010? Check.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

18. She's left out a couple of things.

It won't be easy for states to opt out -- they'll have to have their own plan to cover the uninsured in their states.

It will be available to anyone whose employer doesn't provide coverage or who isn't employed.

[joeycola]

46. I think Obama said it will only include less than 5% of folks.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Complaining and

chewing at fingernails,
uninterested on how uninformed
they show themselves to be...
having no clue or not wanting to have a clue
as to what "final" means...
and what it doesn't.

Lining up to gripe,
cause they ain't really interested in progress,
only about being able to bitch of how they
can't have everything just so, at every step of the way,
with a cherry on top to give them a glow!

Same type who open up one Christmas Present,
while asking what's in the other box
and wondering at the same time,
why only two boxes instead of four. :eyes:

[joeycola]

20. The OP included some substance: You just whined and griped.

[BklnDem75]

24. Um... that's what the OP did

If the OP wants to paraphrase someone, at least provide a link to transcript of the person you're paraphrasing. There's no substance at all, just signs of substance abuse. Low post count and hidden profile is surprise. With the garbage spewed here daily, any freeper would feel welcome.

[jefferson_dem]

28. The OP served up a heaping helping of concern.

That much is true.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. They said for months there would be no public option

So of course any public option will be insufficient. Some people prefer to consider everything a loss and oppression. They're generally sad and stupid people, and we have them in abundance on the left. Wow, what a surprise: it's damn hard to go from an absurdist industry run system to a single-payer system! Quelle suprise! There will have to be many even difficult and minor incremental steps. Only a fucking child would think otherwise, but that's generally what we have here - grown ups who understand history and think like children. "Daddy! Daddy! Make everything better RIGHT NOW!" It's the underlying stupidity of this whole debate.

[joeycola]

23. Democrats Should Dump 'Public Option".....

YES THEY SHOULD!!

http://www.1payer.net/Blogs/democrats-should-dump-public-option.html


Democrats Should Dump 'Public Option"

Posted by: cnewhall on Oct 26, 2009 Print PDF
Tagged in: Representatives , Public Option , Obama , Congress
cnewhall

As Rep. Anthony Wiener pointed out on Saturday night to PNHP in Boston, the public option and the various plans now before Congress are not health reform but simply another spin-m,esiter distortion of the meaning of the word 'reform.' None of th e plans change anything fundamental and the 'public option' is no more than another insurance plan that is likely to be as costly as any other insurance.

Russell Mokhiber argues forcefully that Democrats, particularly the ones who have endorsed single payer Medicare For All as in JR 676, should dump their support for any health reform at all and force the issue. Without the 88 co-sponsors of HR 676, Russell argues that no bill will pass and the White House will be forced to reconsider real reform, as in single payer.

Rep.Wiener made the point that the President is no friend of real health reform and the September Congressional speech highlighted that. It was a betrayal of real reform when Obama said "single payer plans like Canada" when he could have said "single payer plans like Medicare.' This president has consistently refused to address the real issues in health reform. He has lost my respect and he has probably lost my support, at least to the extent that the Democratic Party will get no more of my money or my work.

Is there a light in this tunnel of despair. Perhaps. Rep. Wiener pointed o ut that the longer the debate continues, the more Congresspeople come to see that Medicare For All (not the dread phrase 'single payer') is reasonable, is something people understand and is the way to solve the cost problem. Here is a Washington Post article that makes that point.

So our strategy should be to prolong this health reform debate. Don't give the President what he wants. Don't rush to pass a bill. Delay until the early winter and give more time for real health reform to become the demand of Democrats.

[timzi]

30. I Agree

The Senate proposal as presented is next to useless and push back is appropriate.

I am afraid, however, that the battle may be lost and that was the reason for my post.

Those who characterize my perspective as "purist" are quite obviously ignoring the
fact that singe payer (which is what I support) is the purist position. Public Option
is a marginalization of it.

Once the right succeeded in getting single payer off the table, they got right to work
marginalizing Public Option - and it appears they have succeeded again. The bill as
described is a sham. There is very little "there" there regarding health insurance
reform.

Thanks to all of the thoughtful repliers, you guys are the reason I read DU even though
I don't post all that often.

PS: I registered for DU years ago and don't remember what my profile says. I refuse to
look or "fix" it to try to pacify the critics who seem unable to accept DU as a forum of
ideas. There always seem to be some "high post count snobs" who reject that simple
premise and consistently want to impugn motives. Fortunately in a written format, these
folks are easily ignored. In a town hall meeting, though, they would be the ones shouting
me down - to the detriment of "ideas".

[joeycola]

35. Labeling is a tactic to belittle the OP and add nothing to the discussion...

..........Those who characterize my perspective as "purist" are quite obviously ignoring the
fact that singe payer (which is what I support) is the purist position. Public Option
is a marginalization of it.

[Teaser]

25. SO BORING

seriously, if you're gonna waste my time, at least make sure I enjoy it. You owe me that much.

[timzi]

32. No, I dont.....(n/t)

[cleveramerican]

33. Nobody ever knew what it was anyway

thats why "public option" (hate the term) was so easy to dump.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill.

There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill.
There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill.
There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill. There is no bill.
...


:argh:

[Better Believe It]

40. Is that why we must guess what kind of "public option" is in Reid's bill?

How can so many applaud a Senate public option they haven't read?

We can assume a Senate bill will be weaker than the House bill which means it won't be available to everyone .... just a "sliver" of individuals and employers will be eligible.

But, I bet that some liberals (a minority) will claim that any kind of healthcare bill that comes out of a Senate/House conference will be a huge leap forward no matter how bad it might be and how a weak and destined to fail public option will be used by the right to kill any chance of single payer legislation for at least another generation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. It'll be what it is.

:think:

[earth mom]

37. FYI-No one in GD-P wants to hear the truth you post.

Which is ridiculous because they are only hurting themselves with their denial.

[joeycola]

38. There are some like me who listen but

the Unrecs with their heads in the sand will bury it.

[timzi]

39. Of Course They Will

I've seen it before and expected it, it goes with the territory.
But this does not change the realities or our right to discuss them.

[joeycola]

42. you are right, some

think we can even bring us issues.

[IndianaGreen]

43. the unrecs are DU's version of the tea baggers

[joeycola]

44. true

[flpoljunkie]

45. The greedy insurance lobby wants 100%.

[cliffordu]

47. Enjoy your stay!!

[Honeycombe8]

48. Your other choice is the Baucus plan....which has no public option.

Single payer is out of the question. There is almost no support for it in Congress or among the public.

[Yavin4]

49. Let's Look at What Rachel Said

1. It would only be available to some of those without insurance

Correct, but the number of uninsured is growing year by year because the few new jobs that are being created are not carrying health insurance benefits. In essence, employee based health coverage, like pensions, are becoming a thing of the past. A public option paves the way for single payer.

2. It would not be available to those with insurance or those without in states that opt out

This is indeed morally repugnant, but sometimes you have to make ugly choices in order to get something done. Folks who live in states with conservative legislatures and governors will be hurt by this compromise, but over time, these states will eventually opt in as their health care costs skyrocket.


3. The overwhelming majority of Americans will not have a public option within the next 7 years.

Also correct, but see point number one. The public option is the first step on the path to single payer. Once it is introduced and it works, people will clamour for it more and more. America is not a country open to change. There are still strong strands of racial bigotry, misogyny, and sheer ignorance running through our republic which makes it resistant to change.

[andym]

50. It may be a "sham," but it won't be easy to even get this

thanks to Senator Lieberman.