"Public Option" Reform? (if you could do it all over again)

I know the "public option" idea sure got a lot of people behind this reform from the start; what an idea to have a non-profit socialistic entity to compete and "keep the private providers honest"--who have proven their inability to provide quality, affordable, universal care in a free market setting. Its liberal and somewhat "romantic", if you will. It also started out hinting that 100+ million Americans may possibly be enrolled in it. Thats very exciting.

Now, the latest CBO estimate on the hefty bill suggests only 11 or 12 million Americans may be covered quite a while after it kicks in on 2013. It will come with some decent subsidies (going to for-profit companies), and there are a load of other details aside from the "public option" (which is beginning to look like a negligible distraction). But despite it being a "negligible distraction", it remains a focus for people (who forget most of the other details which are the bulk of the bill). This question is more for those type who embrace the "public option" and focus on it almost to a fault.

So, if you could do it all over again and knew the public insurance side of reform would only cover 12 million people (give or take)...which would you prefer?

Answer B doesn't provide care to the uninsured, nor does it guarantee that those who have private coverage (the only kind available to them) will have it when they need it.

You go to a lot of trouble to set up a strawman when what you really want to ask is "why should I have to buy it?"

This reform will not be Universal. The romantic notion of the "public option" is not going to pan out as so.

If you want to create a "road to universal", what is the best way to do it? Mandates/subsidies/private insurers, or incrementally expanding an existing socialistic public entity (medicare)?

Yes, I did not add a third option. It was a hypothetical choice between the two. They both aren't perfect approaches. If all the right things happened in an incremental nature, its possible they could both be pathways there.

If you are approaching this imperfectly, what is the better imperfect approach? I think that making Medicare an incrementally expanding service may be a great road to universal single-payer, and most certainly a pretty direct route.

BTW, I know expanding Medicare in the way I outlined doesn't focus on "uninsured" specifically. But it also would have drastic market influence to cover such groups I outlined, thereby readjusting risk and cost analysis of private providers (and thus lowering premiums). By ignoring a lot of goodies this bill MAY have in it, some would suffer in the meantime, although it could be a method that may incrementally expand faster to result in less overall suffering over some longer period of time.

employed very attractive. In the end, the firewalls could start coming down, and the non-profit option if tied to Medicare rates could work.

Yes, and the Medicare age could have started coming down in the last few decades. When do all these magical incremental reforms people believe in start happening anyway? Seriously. What makes anyone think this is more of "a road to" than pre-existing socialistic programs that have stalled in significant expansion. What if...this opportunity will be the last in the next 40 years to make changes, incremental or not? Are either of these "incremental"/pragmatic approaches, in that view (which may be wrong), really acceptable?

more regulated and understand the moral contrct to its citizens.

in this administration.

Yeah, this bill is a gift and a ass kiss to private insurance. Seeing as how they WROTE it and dictated the debate, what would you expect?

We must now focus on organizing groups to show up for single payer.

En masse, to our Congress person & Senator's offices during summer recess.

and moderate conservatives to vote for health care reform, which is quickly becoming a second third rail alongside social security. An attempt to expand the already-expensive medicare/medicaid programs (which currently suck up even more of the budget than defense does) without controlling costs, without making it deficit-neutral, and without attempting to do a thing for most workers, would be dead in the water. I doubt more than 150 Representatives would vote for it.