The Public Option is very much ALIVE.

[MercyfulFate]

I hope my state opts out, but no chance of that happening.

I wasn't asking that, but thanks.

 

[midlifebear]

So if you live in a state that opts out, you're up shit's creek?

Listen, I moved out of the fucking COUNTRY to qualify for medical care -- state-of-the-art medical care -- that is much better than that available in the USA regardless if I have insurance or not. Moving to a State that "opts out" is no big deal. Trust me. Even with a private option, the USA has a long way to go when it comes to providing health care as well as freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, a private option is going in the right direction.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Listen, I moved out of the fucking COUNTRY to qualify for medical care -- state-of-the-art medical care -- that is much better than that available in the USA regardless if I have insurance or not. Moving to a State that "opts out" is no big deal. Trust me. Even with a private option, the USA has a long way to go when it comes to providing health care as well as freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, a private option is going in the right direction.

I'm asking because it's going to suck for anyone who wants the plan in a state that doesn't want it.

 

[D_Cleon W Ballbreath IV]

So then shouldn't that "minimal amount" be the same for everyone?

Your question is too short to decipher. What's your point?

 

[Ericsson1228d]

I thought I would relay something that has been transpiring at the company am associated with over the past two months.

Basically, our employees have a health care plan (a blue one) and get 401K matched retirement benefits.

The board, accounting and legal departments have met to best position the company in light of a possible government option. Based on what has been reported, what the cost, employer penalty and predicted increases in private insurance will amount to, they are trying to figure out the best position to be in. Basically, trying to figure out what the bottom line may look like.

Interestingly, with what they have hatched, the solution is fairly elegant: however, the availability of a public option ultimately hurts the employees, and protects corporate profits.

1.) All employees except management will not have their annual contracts renewed, HOWEVER, each of those employees will be given the opportunity to keep their job as a PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. They will be given a 20% per hour raise with their contracts.

2.) Making them private contractors does a number of things: a) removes some level of liability from the company in case of sexual harassment, etc. This will result in our liability insurance premiums to decrease by over 30%. b) it eliminates the employer's responsibility to pay payroll taxes and FICA. The employees, as private contractors, will be responsible c) the retirement program will be discontinued, however private contractors who establish retirement 401K (equivalents) will get a yearly bonus equivalent to around 50% of the former match amount. d) as private contractors, all employees become "at will," meaning no cause is necessary to release them, as long as their contracts are fulfilled. e) their health benefits will cease, and they will be able to purchase from the government option or "exchange." f) services such as parking, etc will remain free, but if necessary parking permits will be implemented and can be purchased by the private contractors. g) all private contractors will be subject to confidentiality agreements, and the company can litigate against them in case of intellectual or corporate theft. h) the company will not be subject to government penalties due to not providing health care, as they will have very few actual "employees" and those employees will maintain their current health care plan. As far as the "higher ups" know, there will be no way to regulate these private contractors, if they don't want insurance, they pay the penalty out of their own pockets.

3.) The estimated cost savings of this implementation runs around +10-20% for the company, on our personnel expenses (not overall profit margin, that number is closer to 4%).

4.) Some raised the issue of losing employees, however, the job situation in Michigan is so terrible right now, this was viewed as an unlikely real problem.

In the end, with the availability of the public option, the company will save some money. The employees will be dumped on the public option, and will have to pay for it out of their own pockets. In addition, their retirement will take a big hit. Also, almost every employee will need an accountant to handle their taxes from now on, as they each essentially will be running a "one man company."

This plan would, unfortunately, result in more take-home pay, but offset by increased "out of pocket expenses", a likely lower level of benefits, and reduced retirement income. The only upside is increased profit for the company.

I was wondering why the upper management was so excited about the public option.

As a side note, the nature of my position would not cause the changes to affect my situation, I'm not management but I am an "exempt" employee class. There are just a few of us, so we weren't even discussed.

So, in the end, corporations will get higher profits and screw employees, and in a state like Michigan, they can get away with it easily.

 

[MercyfulFate]

I thought I would relay something that has been transpiring at the company am associated with over the past two months.

Basically, our employees have a health care plan (a blue one) and get 401K matched retirement benefits.

The board, accounting and legal departments have met to best position the company in light of a possible government option. Based on what has been reported, what the cost, employer penalty and predicted increases in private insurance will amount to, they are trying to figure out the best position to be in. Basically, trying to figure out what the bottom line may look like.

Interestingly, with what they have hatched, the solution is fairly elegant: however, the availability of a public option ultimately hurts the employees, and protects corporate profits.

1.) All employees except management will not have their annual contracts renewed, HOWEVER, each of those employees will be given the opportunity to keep their job as a PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. They will be given a 20% per hour raise with their contracts.

2.) Making them private contractors does a number of things: a) removes some level of liability from the company in case of sexual harassment, etc. This will result in our liability insurance premiums to decrease by over 30%. b) it eliminates the employer's responsibility to pay payroll taxes and FICA. The employees, as private contractors, will be responsible c) the retirement program will be discontinued, however private contractors who establish retirement 401K (equivalents) will get a yearly bonus equivalent to around 50% of the former match amount. d) as private contractors, all employees become "at will," meaning no cause is necessary to release them, as long as their contracts are fulfilled. e) their health benefits will cease, and they will be able to purchase from the government option or "exchange." f) services such as parking, etc will remain free, but if necessary parking permits will be implemented and can be purchased by the private contractors. g) all private contractors will be subject to confidentiality agreements, and the company can litigate against them in case of intellectual or corporate theft. h) the company will not be subject to government penalties due to not providing health care, as they will have very few actual "employees" and those employees will maintain their current health care plan. As far as the "higher ups" know, there will be no way to regulate these private contractors, if they don't want insurance, they pay the penalty out of their own pockets.

3.) The estimated cost savings of this implementation runs around +10-20% for the company, on our personnel expenses (not overall profit margin, that number is closer to 4%).

4.) Some raised the issue of losing employees, however, the job situation in Michigan is so terrible right now, this was viewed as an unlikely real problem.

In the end, with the availability of the public option, the company will save some money. The employees will be dumped on the public option, and will have to pay for it out of their own pockets. In addition, their retirement will take a big hit. Also, almost every employee will need an accountant to handle their taxes from now on, as they each essentially will be running a "one man company."

This plan would, unfortunately, result in more take-home pay, but offset by increased "out of pocket expenses", a likely lower level of benefits, and reduced retirement income. The only upside is increased profit for the company.

I was wondering why the upper management was so excited about the public option.

As a side note, the nature of my position would not cause the changes to affect my situation, I'm not management but I am an "exempt" employee class. There are just a few of us, so we weren't even discussed.

So, in the end, corporations will get higher profits and screw employees, and in a state like Michigan, they can get away with it easily.

I left the company I worked for due to a very similar situation. The company replaced my department, and similar departments throughout their portfolio with an outside contractor.

I had GREAT health insurance through a group PPO as well that I paid next to nothing for. The new company that came in had insurance that was so bad, it actually doesn't meet my state's minimum standards. So now everyone has to get other insurance (likely costing a great chunk a month).

A public option for myself and all of these people would be great. Right now I have to pay out of pocket to keep my former insurance through COBRA, which sucks as my unemployment pay is less than what I made.

 

[jason_els]

I'm not surprised, because your a selfish, crass asshole only interested in your own little world and annoyed that real people share their good fortune for the better good. Obviously, you missed that week in kindergarten where the basics of Humanism and how to get along with others were the main topics.

One can only imagine what you thought the communal sand box was for.

You're better than this.

 

[jason_els]

I thought I would relay something that has been transpiring at the company am associated with over the past two months.

Basically, our employees have a health care plan (a blue one) and get 401K matched retirement benefits.

The board, accounting and legal departments have met to best position the company in light of a possible government option. Based on what has been reported, what the cost, employer penalty and predicted increases in private insurance will amount to, they are trying to figure out the best position to be in. Basically, trying to figure out what the bottom line may look like.

Interestingly, with what they have hatched, the solution is fairly elegant: however, the availability of a public option ultimately hurts the employees, and protects corporate profits.

1.) All employees except management will not have their annual contracts renewed, HOWEVER, each of those employees will be given the opportunity to keep their job as a PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. They will be given a 20% per hour raise with their contracts.

2.) Making them private contractors does a number of things: a) removes some level of liability from the company in case of sexual harassment, etc. This will result in our liability insurance premiums to decrease by over 30%. b) it eliminates the employer's responsibility to pay payroll taxes and FICA. The employees, as private contractors, will be responsible c) the retirement program will be discontinued, however private contractors who establish retirement 401K (equivalents) will get a yearly bonus equivalent to around 50% of the former match amount. d) as private contractors, all employees become "at will," meaning no cause is necessary to release them, as long as their contracts are fulfilled. e) their health benefits will cease, and they will be able to purchase from the government option or "exchange." f) services such as parking, etc will remain free, but if necessary parking permits will be implemented and can be purchased by the private contractors. g) all private contractors will be subject to confidentiality agreements, and the company can litigate against them in case of intellectual or corporate theft. h) the company will not be subject to government penalties due to not providing health care, as they will have very few actual "employees" and those employees will maintain their current health care plan. As far as the "higher ups" know, there will be no way to regulate these private contractors, if they don't want insurance, they pay the penalty out of their own pockets.

3.) The estimated cost savings of this implementation runs around +10-20% for the company, on our personnel expenses (not overall profit margin, that number is closer to 4%).

4.) Some raised the issue of losing employees, however, the job situation in Michigan is so terrible right now, this was viewed as an unlikely real problem.

In the end, with the availability of the public option, the company will save some money. The employees will be dumped on the public option, and will have to pay for it out of their own pockets. In addition, their retirement will take a big hit. Also, almost every employee will need an accountant to handle their taxes from now on, as they each essentially will be running a "one man company."

This plan would, unfortunately, result in more take-home pay, but offset by increased "out of pocket expenses", a likely lower level of benefits, and reduced retirement income. The only upside is increased profit for the company.

I was wondering why the upper management was so excited about the public option.

As a side note, the nature of my position would not cause the changes to affect my situation, I'm not management but I am an "exempt" employee class. There are just a few of us, so we weren't even discussed.

So, in the end, corporations will get higher profits and screw employees, and in a state like Michigan, they can get away with it easily.

Which is why the public option is, in effect, the beginning of the end for traditional employment practices. Employees will now be as portable as they want to be, not simply as disposable as the employer will want them to be.

This is the trend as it is developing anyway. People work for companies for shorter and shorter periods, take more responsibility for retirement and savings, while having no qualms about taking new jobs as they arise. We are going from life-long employment to virtually daily employment. We work from home, work in virtual offices, create new temporary businesses, and keep fingers in many pies. That's the wave we're on. Public health care removes one of the most onerous chains holding employees to unsatisfactory employers.

It's a two-way street with benefits and liabilities for both sides.

You can complain about the tax issues and everything else but if your company thought of this then so did every other and the uproar over the possible issues with it will be enough to get various laws changed to accommodate the new paradigm. Ultimately companies will be thrilled to get rid of managing benefits (or paying to do so) altogether. They're heading there anyway so may as well bite the bullet now before one day employees are informed there will be no more health benefits and there is no public option to fall back on (like now).

There is also the situation of private contract in some states which have encountered this. Some states, like New York, use a duck test to determine who is an employee and who is a contractor and they do not permit employers to dump employees into private contract status unless they truly qualify as one. This happened due to a change in employment law in New York back in the 80s and it caused companies to dump employees en masse. The state quickly halted it and forced most to be hired back as true employees. The reason was simple. The state was losing payroll taxes and income taxes.

Your company may need to come up with a Plan B.

 

[Bbucko]

So because I am a healthy young person, I should be penalized into paying more for healthcare because of someone else's bad situation? I hope you can see what a hard pill that is to swallow.

Contrary to what you might think, neither youth nor health are infinite. Under the current system, circumstances beyond your control can/will/do put people in situations previously considered unimaginable. When your time comes, hopefully, a new system will be in place and you won't have to go through the slide from comfortably middle-class to working poor.

Their advocates are great in number and are some of the most active participants in the debate. I am weary of the class warfare argument. Its hot headed, not fully rational, and sure to leave us worse off than we are. If you want to know what happens when we act on emotion without thinking it over completely, just look to the east and the two protracted wars we are in. I advocate slowing down. We could do a lot to help people who really need it with a lot less legislation than we are currently tryign to pass.

This is not a question of class warfare (though the fact that you see it that way speaks volumes). And the imperialist wars of conquest which were poorly planned have no bearing on a domestic crisis that's been looming for many many years. What's it with you and all this war talk?

I am sad to hear of your situation, but am happy you are still so eager to do whatever you can. I understand that there are certain factors in our lives that we cannot control. I also must say that since I do not fully comprehend your situation, I cannot argue against it, but I can say that projecting the victim mentality is surely not going to get us to solve our problems, because when there is a victim we often try to assign blame, and more often than not, it gets misplaced, or we get legislation that is ineffectual.

Your patronizing condolences while accusing me of furthering a "victim mentality" shows that you don't know me at all. You're a pathetic shit.

Your income is really none of my business but if your current income is 1/6 of what it once was, you are either living with an income WAY below the poverty level right now, or you were earning close to 6 figures. Now one thing that I cannot stand, is when someone complains that they have it bad, when they could have very obviously done better. I am not saying that you necessarily could have done anythign better or planned for this situation. I am merely left wondering how you got from there(2002) to here...

Your skills at math equal your ability to reason in other areas, sadly. Federal Poverty Level for an individual is currently $10,830. In 2008 I earned a shade under 120% of FPL. Multiply that by six and you'll find that you're still way shy of six figures and still anchored firmly in the middle class, but comfortable, for sure.

The fact that you're trying to insinuate that poor planning on my part caused my finances to implode once health limitations prevented me from earning my accustomed livelihood is naive and abhorrent.

Regarding personal responsibility, and assuming you were a model citizen before the trouble began, are we to assume then that you now disavow personal responsibility and wish for your ailment to now be society's responsibility?

You have a terrible awakening due to you one day. It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

Perhaps, but how can you be sure you would get what you need under a universal or public plan? If the goverment is planning on telling the hospitals what it thinks is fair compensation, I highly doubt the public plan will offer you much more than the most basic rudimentary care that is not much better than what you are currently receiving.

That's because you have no comprehension of what I have now. Your entire response to my post shows how truly little you understand about anything. But between questioning my integrity and your other baseless accusations and presumptions, you've really shown how incapable of growth and adaptation in your own life.

 

[Bbucko]

So if you live in a state that opts out, you're up shit's creek?

I'm asking because it's going to suck for anyone who wants the plan in a state that doesn't want it.

I'm really unclear on how you reconcile the fact that you don't believe that compulsory health insurance is a good thing with the opt-out concept on the state level. It seems contradictory.

 

[MercyfulFate]

I'm really unclear on how you reconcile the fact that you don't believe that compulsory health insurance is a good thing with the opt-out concept on the state level. It seems contradictory.

Mandatory insurance, and your state allowing you the public option aren't quite the same thing.

Making insurance mandatory is bad to me, because you're essentially handing the insurance companies that make a living off screwing people, new customers and more premiums. A public option with clauses against denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and other ludicrous things would be vastly superior.

A better run, more cost effective public option (like Medicare) that people have the option to get in on is not quite the same thing. I'm saying if you live in a state that says they refuse a public option, the people that may want to get in on it might get screwed. Mandatory healthcare either way is something I don't agree with, but my beliefs on it aren't contradictory.

Most of the details have not been released, so we need more information on the whole thing.

 

[Bbucko]

You're better than this.

Actually, MLB went easy on him.

 

[jason_els]

Why should the young and healthy have to subsidize the health care of others? Same question could be raised by the childless about the eduction of the children of others. It's in all of our best interests to provide a minimal amount to each other through our taxes. Otherwise, we should go back to the caves.

Because the old and decrepit have been subsidizing you for the first 18 years of your life. :biggrin1:

It's a legitimate question.

The question does assume a perfect economy and, as I pointed out in the Ayn Rand thread, there is no such thing. Most people who have this view are themselves young. I mean to be patronizing by saying that, but it's true. The fact is society is a lot more complex than we imagine and we all benefit when we all benefit. We benefit from roads, mass transit, utilities, the industry and expertise of others who contribute to our lives in very tangible ways.

Why do we give scholarships to poor smart kids? It's not so that we feel better about ourselves or can have a grant named after us. There are far cheaper ways to memorialize ourselves in perpetuity. The point is so that the chances are enhanced that the scholar will go on to enhance society in general. Maybe it'll be a cure for a dread disease, maybe it'll be poetry, maybe it'll be the successor to the ball point pen.

Why do we provide fire protection to everyone? It's not so we can save their homes or businesses. It's so that other buildings and houses do not catch fire or it's because lives are saved or it's because it diminishes the loss of property to the owner and the owner's insurers.

Public good and trust is what makes a civilization civil. If you want to see what a place is like when everyone is out for themselves, visit Somalia. That's run by a bunch of warlords because there is no federal government. There are no utilities beyond what the warlords provide. There is no democracy, there are no rights, there is nothing resembling government beyond the fiefdoms of the warlords. If you want to make a living, you have to provide something of value to the warlord whether it's an able-bodied son who can tote a gun, an attractive virgin daughter, your cattle, part of the goods you make or sell, or some other thing that the warlord decides is of value.

There is never such a thing as a power vacuum in human society. Do you know why? Because there is too much perceived benefit in banding together to create force of will. 1000 people living quiet lives in complete self-reliance in Galt's Gulch will find themselves with a government of one sort or another soon enough whether they like it or not because at least some of them will realize that they benefit more when they cooperate than when they don't.

Being able to individuate is great. Everyone does that. What is necessary is also realizing that we are more interdependent now than at any other time in history and our failure to provide for our neighbors results in loss to us in the long run. You may be thrilled to save some money on your taxes but you'll be pissed that crime goes up, education goes down, even more idiotic people get elected, and fewer people can afford to keep you in the affluence you so richly deserve; it does take the wealth of others to make ourselves wealthy. If they can't afford to give it to you then you're not getting rich. Enhancing the wealth, safety, and education of a society makes it more prosperous and stable even if wealth has to be redistributed to do it.

 

[Bbucko]

Mandatory insurance, and your state allowing you the public option aren't quite the same thing.

Making insurance mandatory is bad to me, because you're essentially handing the insurance companies that make a living off screwing people, new customers and more premiums.

A better run, more cost effective public option (like Medicare) that people have the option to get in on is not quite the same thing.

I've gotta admit, I'm not quite as up on the opt-out clause as I should be. But I think that any state that opts out of the public option while not affording its citizens reasonable choices in some other fashion will quickly be drained of inhabitants: who the fuck would want to live in such a hell-hole?

 

[MercyfulFate]

I've gotta admit, I'm not quite as up on the opt-out clause as I should be. But I think that any state that opts out of the public option while not affording its citizens reasonable choices in some other fashion will quickly be drained of inhabitants: who the fuck would want to live in such a hell-hole?

I'm not either, and as of now I'm not sure if mandatory health insurance is going to go hand in hand with the public option. So far it seems as it will.

The details of Reid's bill haven't been released, so we only know what little we have so far.

However paying say, 10 bucks a check for public healthcare versus $150 a month for private (which will exclude you based on anything they can find) is a better way to go.

I just dislike the idea of having to pay the greedy, asshole-ish insurance companies who will try at ever turn to deny you coverage and raise your premiums.

 

[Bbucko]

I thought I would relay something that has been transpiring at the company am associated with over the past two months.

[...]

So, in the end, corporations will get higher profits and screw employees, and in a state like Michigan, they can get away with it easily.

It sounds to me as though you're expecting corporations to behave according to 20th century principles in the 21st. Of course corporations care more about money than people: I left corporate worklife to work for entrepreneurs in 1988 after having my profit-sharing stolen by the very same people who swore it was untouchable.

If you want to matter as an individual with real opinions and have a real stake in how things are operated, work for an entrepreneur: anything else and you're just a cog in the wheels of some vast and monstrous piece of machinery.

 

[MercyfulFate]

It sounds to me as though you're expecting corporations to behave according to 20th century principles in the 21st. Of course corporations care more about money than people: I left corporate worklife to work for entrepreneurs in 1988 after having my profit-sharing stolen by the very same people who swore it was untouchable.

If you want to matter as an individual with real opinions and have a real stake in how things are operated, work for an entrepreneur: anything else and you're just a cog in the wheels of some vast and monstrous piece of machinery.

Can you direct me to one of this magnanimous people for a job? :biggrin1:

As a business graduate, I understand the bottom line. However if every business just ships out their workforce to save money, nothing will be left for the citizens of the nation where they belong.

There has to be some middle ground in that regard.

 

[Bbucko]

I just dislike the idea of having to pay the greedy, asshole-ish insurance companies who will try at ever turn to deny you coverage and raise your premiums.

That's because you live in MA, the efforts of which at providing Universal Health Care are an excellent illustration of the limits of Federalism.

It's my understanding that exclusions for pre-existing conditions will be a thing of the past no matter where you live. But as far as making certain conditions too expensive to treat? That's anybody's guess. Under a single-payer system that wouldn't happen, but we're still light-years away from anything that enlightened.

 

[Bbucko]

Can you direct me to one of this magnanimous people for a job? :biggrin1:

As a business graduate, I understand the bottom line. However if every business just ships out their workforce to save money, nothing will be left for the citizens of the nation where they belong.

There has to be some middle ground in that regard.

:biggrin1::wink:

It involves a top-to-bottom realignment of personal priorities, including some real calibration of how much job satisfaction is really worth, because you will not have the same job security nor the same earnings potential working for an individual rather than a corporate entity. The trade-offs can be harrowing.

Working for an individual is also not so great for linear thinkers or nine-to-fivers (not saying you're either). It's not just thinking out of the box: you've gotta be flexible enough to want to create whole new boxes on a regular basis. This is much easier on creative types than, say, accountants. And you've gotta be willing to take some strange calls at strange times; type-A personalities always have issues with limits, so if you don't set them immediately and reinforce them frequently, you'll wonder where your life disappeared to

 

[jason_els]

I am sad to hear of your situation, but am happy you are still so eager to do whatever you can. I understand that there are certain factors in our lives that we cannot control. I also must say that since I do not fully comprehend your situation, I cannot argue against it, but I can say that projecting the victim mentality is surely not going to get us to solve our problems, because when there is a victim we often try to assign blame, and more often than not, it gets misplaced, or we get legislation that is ineffectual.

You clearly don't know the poster you're responding to at all. There is no, "victim mentality," in him. What he's taken the time to do is to warn you of what can happen to anyone who falls between the cracks and is, under our present system, forever chained to living on public assistance (which you pay for, thank you very much:smile. In our present system, Bbucko (and myself) cannot go out and get jobs even if we are able to work because we cannot buy health insurance. If we are offered health insurance by an employer it still will not cover the catastrophic conditions for which we need continual treatment because of pre-existing condition clauses. If we are hired and, by some miraculous reason, there is no pre-existing condition clause, we will be fired by an employer for creating a permanent disproportional benefit cost increase. There is no incentive to hire and retain someone at market value when they cost far more than a healthy person doing the same job.

There is no situation where he or I can keep our government Medicaid/Medicare benefit and be legally gainfully employed unless we were to start our own businesses but, even then, once we earned anything, we'd lose our benefits and, again, nobody will sell us a policy. It would be cheaper to pay out-of-pocket and that cost can be well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Odd as it may sound, neither of us want this to happen to you or a loved one. It's devastating because it confiscates your entire savings, including your retirement, and any large tangible assets you have. Your entire life is wiped-out as you sell it all off to pay medical bills to become poor enough to qualify for government assistance.

Had Bbucko or I lived in any other major industrialized country in the world, we would not be burdens to society for the rest of our lives, but active contributors to the commonweal even now while we are ill. So here you have two guys who have proven their ability to generate wealth (not welfare queens) prevented from doing so by a system that keeps us poor all due to health care. And yes, HAHA, you get to foot the bill for it.

Now do you see why we're such big public option advocates? I mean beyond the opinion that we both believe human life to be precious and worth enhancing to the best of our ability?

Your patronizing condolences while accusing me of furthering a "victim mentality" shows that you don't know me at all. You're a pathetic shit.

Stop and breathe. He needs to learn about this black hole we're in that's swallowing people left and right. Flies, vinegar, honey, all that sort of thing.

Mandatory insurance, and your state allowing you the public option aren't quite the same thing.

Making insurance mandatory is bad to me, because you're essentially handing the insurance companies that make a living off screwing people, new customers and more premiums. A public option with clauses against denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and other ludicrous things would be vastly superior.

A better run, more cost effective public option (like Medicare) that people have the option to get in on is not quite the same thing. I'm saying if you live in a state that says they refuse a public option, the people that may want to get in on it might get screwed. Mandatory healthcare either way is something I don't agree with, but my beliefs on it aren't contradictory.

Most of the details have not been released, so we need more information on the whole thing.

This I do agree with. I do believe that the insurance companies need to be out of public option altogether. I think including them is a huge mistake on the whole.

But it's a first step. It's imperfect, it may not even work well, but it is a first step to a true public system that I'm sure we'll hammer and cobble together piece by piece as the years go on into something resembling a modern health care system.

I do, however, disagree that we should not have mandatory health care. Everyone needs mandatory health care because what are we going to do without it? Let people die? Force them into crime? I could never be a doctor or nurse standing in front of a patient and refuse them life-saving care simply because they cannot pay me or my employer. It's beyond barbaric because even the barbarians care for each other when wounded and ill.

There is nothing that says if you want to buy supplementary insurance you can't have it. Most people in Canada and Europe do as part of their employment benefits. These are policies which are cheap and provide access to private care for the vast majority of health concerns. The reason it's so cheap is because the policies don't have to provide catastrophic coverage for major cost accidents and illnesses. If you want insurance above and beyond what the public option provides, it's yours for the asking.