The Public Option is very much ALIVE.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, Oct 22, 2009.

  1. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    I hope these words don't come back to bite me in the ass in a couple months, but, to all of those folks following the chess pieces on the board, today was an extremely optimistic day regarding the inclusion of a public option in a final healthcare bill.

    Reid is working - behind closed doors - with Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Max Bauchus and some republican to meld, or reconcile, two Senate bills (one with a public option, one without).

    Pelosi is working to reconcile three House bills.

    Once you have one Senate and one House bill, those two are melded together, then sent to Obama for his John Hancock.



    From ABC News:

    Public Option: It's Back

    October 22, 2009

    The public option. The idea was believed to be dead. Liberals wanted it, but Senate vote counters insisted it simply could not pass the Senate. The dynamic, however, has changed. The public option may be back from dead.

    I am told that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is leaning toward including the creation of a new government-run insurance program – the so-called public option – in the health care reform bill he will bring to the full Senate in the coming weeks.

    Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.


    Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.


    Public Option: It's Back - The Note

    --------------------


    From Huffington Post:

    Among the well informed, it was relayed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was looking at whether he could pass a public option with an opt-out clause for states in the final Senate package. Reid would then work to make sure that a more robust, national public plan (which he himself favors) would be included in health care reform once the Senate's bill was merged with the House's version.

    "The goal is to have the strongest possible bargaining position as possible," said one progressive health care strategist who has worked with leadership in Congress and the White House. "The opt-out option is the best of all the compromises and it puts Reid in decent position going into the conference committee."

    Public Option Chess Match: Reid Working For Best Bargaining Position

    --------------------


    And one last, from today's Politico:

    W.H. leaning towards public option

    Top White House and Senate officials are leaning towards including a public option - with a provision for states to opt out of it - in the Senate health care bill, as the Senate leadership heads to the Oval Office Thursday for a meeting with the president.


    Two Democratic senators said Thursday that they have been told negotiators are zeroing in on creating a national government health plan, but allowing states to drop out of it or choose a different competitor to private insurance.



    W.H. leaning towards public option - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

    --------------------


    I'm not here to shill or shake pom-poms or kiss Obama's ass. Just wanted to share my deep hope with the other folks on the politics forum that it looks like something good finally may be happening for the average american joe. - I mean, privatize restaurants and Fruit Loops and jeans and movies and frisbees --- but people's HEALTH should not be in the hands of Wall Street and stockholders and for-profit institutions (in my humble opinion).
     
  2. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    I agree with you, Will. The opt-out option may be the answer that gets it through. I'm more optimistic than I've been in weeks.
     
  3. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    And, Nick8, the insider secret that nobody talks about is: no matter what form of a public option passes, dems are counting on something to pass to get a foot in the door.

    Once something is passed, dems can BUILD on it. Every 2 to 4 years, we'll expand coverage and build clinics. We'll get that freaking NATIONALIZED, universal healthcare, in the BEST european tradition one way or another.
     
  4. wispandex_bulge

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Oh dear, well we may get nationlized healthcare, but I dont know how many of our doctors are goign to work for government wages. I'm sure the government will try to penalize or otherwise strongarm hospitals and doctors into complying with goverment standards...i guess that means the majority of us will get free...albeit sub par (due ot lack of funding) healthcare, while the rich will have personal doctors.

    OMG this is turning into Frank Herberts DUNE. Get yoru Suk while they last folks. Medicine may be a dying tradition in America!
     
  5. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    LOL - yeah, every 2 to 4 years! They better do it quick, because a lot of them will be out on their asses and there filibuster-proof majority will be gone after the 2010 election!

    PS. Where are those jobs, Mr. Obama? --- SILENCE
    PPS. What is the decision about Afghanistan? --- SILENCE
    PPPS. When did GITMO close? ---- SILENCE

    People can argue GWB fucked things up, but it seems that all Obama is doing is interviews and keeping the Oval office chair warm. EPIC FAIL.
     
  6. Dave NoCal

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,995
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    256
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sacramento (CA, US)
    Medicine is already a dying tradition in America under the current arrangements. We pay twice as much as the next highest paying country, France and rate 37th in measurable outcomes, right next to Slovenia and Chile. France, by the way is 1st in measurable outcomes. Any of us is a layoff away from having no coverage at all. It MUST change.
    Dave
     
  7. MercyfulFate

    MercyfulFate New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    It needs to be included, or healthcare reform fails utterly.

    Simply mandating people to have insurance would be a grave mistake.
     
  8. wispandex_bulge

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    The mandate goes against most interpretations of personal liberty. The public option goes against common sense.

    Most of the ideas i have seen so far only serve to divert the cost of healthcare, not stop its rise. If we have a public option, it will be funded by taxpayers, and dont even begin to think that only high earners will have to pay it. The only way the government will get the revenue it needs is to tax YOU...the very person they are claiming to shield with this bill.

    We CAN provide affordable healthcare, WITHOUT a mandate, and WITHOUT a public option.
     
  9. Dave NoCal

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,995
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    256
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sacramento (CA, US)
    And how is that?
     
  10. wispandex_bulge

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    We can increase competition by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. We can subisize insurance for lower income people so that they are protected from catastrophic illness. People with pre-existing conditions should be covered, but they will probalby have to pay more, because in a free market insurance companies must have the ability to attract customers with lower prices, and for risk actuaries, healthy people are more attractive customers. If we control prices so that those that are unhealthy and those that are healthy must pay the same amount (there are states that mandate this), insurance premiums become unpalatable for most.

    Finally, a moer thorough and indepth analysis of the money flow and value flow of the healthcare industry might provide some further insight into ways to slow and in some cases reverse the trend in healthcare spending. After all, Americans do not just pay more for health care in SPITE of our health issues, we often pay more BECAUSE of our health issues. Only a larger change in attitudes toward fitness and nutrition can change that trend.
     
  11. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Everyone's been talking about "compromise" as "failure". Bullshit. It's always been about getting the door opened; that's what mattered.

    Your post sums up my thoughts exactly. It why I've been letting all the pundits on both side yak-yak-yak. All I care about is getting a bill passed in one form or another and then building on the result.
     
  12. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Thanks for the heads-up, Chicken Little. :rolleyes:


    This is where the true philosophical differences lie...differences that are utterly irreconcilable. Quite simply put, your viewpoint is abhorrent to me. The lives and well being of our citizens is NOT a market to be tapped nor a resource to be monetized and streamlined for maximum profit. Basic medical care is every citizen's right as a member of our society, from the meanest to the most affluent...a sunk cost for our society as a whole.

    What needs to be trimmed is the paper-pushing fat layer in the middle that adds no value.
     
    #12 HazelGod, Oct 23, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2009
  13. D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0

    yeah, just pass a bill who cares whats in it or how it's going to get paid. that seems to be the logic
     
  14. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    What's it like working for Aetna?

    Good pension plan? Stock options?
     
  15. D_Cleon W Ballbreath IV

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everyone who drives is required to auto insurance. Doesn't that go against personal liberty? Even so, it looks like a pretty good idea.
    Everyone, even those without kids of their own, pay taxes to support public schools. Many, including every other industrialized nation, consider access to basic health care as fundamental a right as access to an education.

    How do you figure that? There will be premiums just as there are for Medicare. That's all the public option is: Medicare for everyone.
     
  16. D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #16 D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III, Oct 23, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2009
  17. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    People with chronic conditions are the last people to be expected to pay more for health insurance premiums.

    There exist in this country millions of people who are living with conditions that impair one's ability to earn a good living but who aren't nearly-dead enough yet to be put on disability and get SSDI/Medicare. The sick working poor are very unglamorous and do not have a voice in the discussion, let alone a seat at any tables where such important discussions and changes are actually made.

    I know this because I'm one of them. I live with HIV, and have the arteries of a man in his 70s due to the side-effects of several medications I have taken in order to remain alive. I also have a painful and (occasionally) debilitating chronic arthritic condition in my neck, which is degenerative. I also live with some extremely unglam digestive issues which I won't discuss in detail here, but suffice it to say that I should never be more than ten minutes from a bathroom without several hours of preparation :cool:

    I have great days, good days and many that aren't so very much. Because of the good and great days and because I am loath to soak from a system that is demoralizing and ultimately dehumanizing, I'm still working. But because of the variety of issues and compromises I live with, my career is no longer a possibility for me, and last year my income was almost exactly 1/6th of what it was in 2002.

    And of course, I am ineligible for most any kind of health insurance: certainly nothing that would pay for any of the treatments and medications that I need.

    There are a variety of state and federal programs to help me with the HIV, but nothing for the arthritis or the GI stuff, and nothing for the depression that anyone in a similar situation would naturally experience.

    Anyone who is concerned about my not understanding the consequences of my decisions or any reticence I feel regarding the subject of "personal responsibility" obviously doesn't have a clue as to what my daily life actually entails. I wouldn't wish one of my not-so-hot days on anybody, and they're hardly uncommon.

    Universal health care wouldn't make my HIV go away. But it would allow me to get treatment for the chronic pain, GI issues and arterial disease that life has thrown my way, which in turn might allow me to work a better job and, incidentally, pay the kind of taxes I did 10-15 years ago.

    I'm just using myself as an example of this. According to the Southern AIDS Coalition's 2003 Manifesto (page 7):

     
  18. D_Cleon W Ballbreath IV

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I understand, if you're caught driving without insurance, you face very serious penalties. And heaven help you if you have an accident without it.

    There was a time when getting a basic education or the vote were not considered a right. Welcome to a more civilized time.

    What does welfare have to do with this discussion?
     
  19. D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0

    nothing wrong with letting a few folks die off, particularly those who are a drain on the system as it is. just like your lawn. you let th weeds grow it chokes out the whole lawn and everthing is fucked
     
  20. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Since the wealthy considers anyone who isn't like them to be a drain, could you inform us as to when you'll be dying? :rolleyes:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted