Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocrats Seem Sort of Tepid About the Public Option
BloombergHillary Clinton supports adding a public option to the Affordable Care Act -- that is, a government-run insurance program to compete with private health insurance. She announced her support in July, and the public option was the only specific change to Obamacare that she mentioned in her economics speech last week.
This position makes a lot of practical sense, as the New Republics Brian Beutler has been pointing out. The Congressional Budget Office has scored a public option as deficit-reducing, which means Democrats wouldnt have to raise taxes or cut spending to pay for it. A public option has also polled well. For example, back in December 2009 a CBS News/New York Times survey found 59 percent favored including a public option in Obamacare, with only 29 percent opposed.
...snip...
Unfortunately for public-option advocates, the candidates most likely to become new Democratic senators in 2017 dont seem especially interested in advocating that policy.
Only one of 11 candidates, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, mentions support for a public option on the issues section of his campaign website. Indeed, only six of the 11 that I surveyed even had a health care section on their websites. Kamala Harris, in solidly Democratic California, has nine different subject areas, from immigration to the environment and protecting animals. She has separate tabs for higher education and K-12 education. But no health care.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 494 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats Seem Sort of Tepid About the Public Option (Original Post)
brooklynite
Aug 2016
OP
elleng
(130,974 posts)1. Too complicated?
Glad Van Hollen includes it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)2. They'll all fall in line once Pres.Hillary pushes for it.
And because they dont have it on their website doesnt mean they wont go for it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)3. Public option runs into the question of
"What happens if it loses money?"
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)4. Always keep your cards close to the breast.
It would not be smart to allow T. Rump any issue to use as a wedge between now and the election. Plus, by Bloomberg describing Dems as not being interested, it placates the lustig T.Rump masses & Don de L'Orange can't use it.
Then, after the election, Dems will most likely fiat a bill in the senate.