I would support the Option if Single Payer is going to sink the whole reform.

And I think Single Payer will sink the whole reform.

Here's my thinking on this...and please know that I have been listening very carefully to all sides and also talking to people.

Regular people, not the wingnuts, are nervous about HCR. They want it. They know they need it. But it scares them...especially people who are happy with their health insurance, and there are many of them out there.

I am not convinced that government is ready or capable of making a seamless shift to Single Payer and a seamless shift is critical because if government is not perfectly prepared for this, people will die. This is not like going to digital on your TV...which was challenging enough. This is life or death. So...

I think we should go to a public option and ease it in, watch it work, not overwhelm the government, make sure it can succeed. If it does, and I think it will, we will be able to look seriously at single payer in a few years.

Let's let the Public Option become the poster child for good health care coverage and we can go from there.

Sometime great things are accomplished in small deliberate steps.

So tell me why I'm thinking wrong on this. :-)

:shrug:

for these companies. They are not the enemy and the guillotine will only hurt them not the bosses who have millions socked away. These companies will find other ways to make $, believe me. Also, if the public option works, the writing will be on the wall of the insurance industry. If they lose this fight, they know they are eventually gone. That is why we have to win this and the Public Option may do it. I will bet that the Insurance Companies are hoping that Obama pushes the Single Payer because I think they feel he has a better chance of losing the whole thing.

The government will grow significantly if we get single payer. Not a complaint .... a prediction of fact.

But you can still identify it by the stink.

Giving up in advance is not the way to negotiate ANYTHING.

We're letting the people who LOST THE ELECTION take the hard line. We need to take it and stick so firm that they are willing to give up almost anything. THEN we talk.

Caving in because of idiotic night terrors of what might happen? Go crawl back under that bridge and cower.

in 2 steps rather that 1 step. Also, I work for government and am very proud of it but I'm not sure government can pull this off is one fell swoop.

The Democrats have full majorities in the House/Senate/Admin.

The Republican party is dead.

People want single payer.

Obama has more political capital than any Prez in our lifetimes.

What's the holdup?

and also with the understanding that Reaganomics and the "Red scare" still holds a huge sway over the people.

I think Single Payer absolutists should have put their focus into a "trigger" rider on this that would have been by far more constructive and put a real pressure on government and the insurance industry to really try to make a go of it before we have to step in and clean house. This would have been a substantive and effective compromise that would put some real muscle into the process while still giving space for a more or less market solution to work.

You guys have nothing but right on your side. No votes on The Hill and very soft public support. That effort could have been a boon for the people but all or nothing took root. You did not put anything into making the option more effective and using your power there and you didn't back off and offer any creative compromise that would come to your way of thinking if the market based bandaids fail.

Most of the ones out now don't. Even the public option is running behind.

and single payer is not forcing those who have private insurance and are happy with it to switch.

If our representatives think they can get more votes by abandoning single payer than supporting it, then let them vote accordingly.

We will support them commensurately, come the next election in 2010.

Good luck.

If you don't want it, you can stay with your private insurer.

I thought Single Payer means that the gov is the only source of health care in this country. Public Option, to me, means that among the array of insurance carriers, I can pick the government provided insurance if I want to. What have I missed?

Medicare is a single payer plan.

Yet we still have private insurance.

Single payer means no private insurance allowed for anything covered under single payer. And, no paying out of pocket for anything covered under single payer.

That's why I oppose single payer as it is currently proposed.

That's not what is means.

Medicare is single payer and we still have private insurance.

Explain that.

It just takes the most expensive patients off the rolls, so that private insurance can collect premiums only from the cheaper, healthier patients.

single payer because it will now be competing directly with for profit insurance.

Medicare for all is the farthest thing away from what the congress defines as a public option. In the proposed legislation so far there is a weak public option with limited enrollment to privatized public option run by insurance companies.


Nothing close to a public option that is medicare for all or a genuine single payer system has been proposed in any bill.

and if they have a better product to offer.

Nothing precludes them...

You can opt into private plans with your medicare. And unlike the proposed single payer system, you can buy other insurance or pay a bill out of your own pocket, if you can afford to.

Go read HR 676

No?

I didn't think so.


Is that Obama's plan?

No?

I didn't think so either.

PS:

Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities to participate.

As you're obviously confusing yourself.

What you are calling single payer is incorrect - you are ignorant of what the term means. I explained what it is and you said bullshit.

It has nothing to do with what the President has proposed or what anyone else has proposed. It has to do with what singler payer is and/or isn't.

And it isn't what you said it is.

I will give it all the consideration it deserves.

Insurance companies are our benevolent protectors.

Of course they will step in if there is any gap in our coverage....

What was I thinking?

cover gaps in medicare payments. Sort of a mini privitization to get their foot in the door. Those policies don't compete directly with medicare and are regulated, in so much as our government can regulate any private corp these days.

People don't have to take Medicare at 65, do they?

thus sparing their families the financial burden of caring for the elderly.

Isn't America's Health Care system Great?!

whatever form it takes, there are several definitions of public option all compete with private ins.

Single payer/medicare for all gets rid of for profit insurance co. as direct competition and relegates them to a much smaller corner to offer vanity care policies and luxury add ons.

The public plan, whatever form it takes competes directly with for profit companies offering the same product.

option, the insurance industry will continue to do what ti is doing: take in healthy people and spit out the sick people for society to care for. Since those using the public option in this scenario will be people whoa re very expensive to care for, the public option will look like a failure because its cost will be so very high. if we were all on the public option, the cost would go way down per person, because healthy people and sick people together average out. It would cost LESS than it costs today per person for much better health care for all. At the same time, under single payer, we can buy healthcare for less. When you re buying for a huge group of people, the cost goes down. Leaving the current system in place, simply loses that option all together. If we had single payer we could simply buy our drugs from canada for half the price period. That would lower the price here to half immediately. The interests of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies are one and only one. greed. more and more profit. That interest is directly against the interests of the people of this country and any government which cares about the people of this country.
single payer works. it is successful in every single developed country, except for one. the US. It is cheaper. care is better.

that health care reform wold prohibit insurance companies from spitting out us unhealthy ones because they would no longer be able to exclude preexisting conditions. Wouldn't that even the playing ield to some extent? Also. I have no doubt that single payer works elsewhere. I am looking at our present political situation and wondering how we best get to where we need to be.

prices, AND the insurance companies were highly highly regulated, it could work. but obama already made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies whereby, they will support him,a nd in turn we don't get to negotiate prices on drugs. (They will remove a tiny percentage of the RISE they are planning to give over the next few years, which is nothing.)In addition the health insurance executives all said under oath that they will NOT remove preexisting conditions clauses. that was at a congressional hearing. And because the public option is a tiny program, it will only be used by the sickest and the poorest of people.....
In reality, the debate should not be about HEALTH INSURANCE, but about health care. It is really simple. tax the uber-rich, open up free clinics. people will flock to them. They already do. People are waiting for days in line for the free medical care being given out by medical students. All of those people, if not treated, would end up eventually in the emergency room. guess who pays for that.....

If we are going to make a law that says nobody can purchase health care but the government, and the government refused to pay for a procedure (as any insurer must in some cases) then the government is sentencing the patient to the fate of his infirmity. How can the government tell somebody that they can't spend their own money to save their own lives or health?

Will the government arrest people who try to get health care on the black market? To me, a big part of being a lib is being against people getting arrested for stupid reasons. Another part is believing in the right to privacy. Health care decisions are definitely private and the government shouldn't intrude on them. I'm sure if Americans were presented with such a plan, they'd be wildly against it. What's more, the courts would never allow it.

I don't understand how anybody could tell somebody who needs an operation and can get it that they aren't allowed for the good of society.

Does the Canadian government put people in jail if they pay privately?

There is a difference between purchasing insurance that competes with the national insurance and paying out of pocket for a procedure that is not covered and there is a difference between having the procedure covered and not being allowed to have the procedure done.

If your insurance company does not cover the procedure you can also pay out of your own pocket, same as you could with a national insurance.

Big moral problems I have with the public option is that it will leave millions without any coverage and continue to allow the insurance companies to profit by not providing care.

I think they tell doctors that if they don't dedicate a large enough portion of their practices to public patients then they can't get any public money at all.

I don't see the difference between paying out of pocket and purchasing insurance that will do that for you. Its your own money either way.

I agree there is a big difference when not allowing a procedure to be done. But if you allow procedures to be done when people pay on their own then you don't have 100% single payer. What about a case where a person's condition is getting worse and single payer would pay for the care but care could be obtained sooner by forking over the dough? What about an insurance policy that provides higher quality doctors? The single payer advocates would probably call that creating a two tiered health system. Soon, they would push to wipe out the alternatives and you'd have the moral dilemmas I posted about.

I don't see why you care whether insurance companies make money or not. If they can do a better job than the government then why not have them? If the government can do a better job, and I believe they can, then let the government provide a public option. Competition will make them both better. If somebody wants to spend his own money on health insurance that's his own business, not yours. He's adding to the system, not subtracting from it.

now, we do not. what are you talking about for the good of society? are you drinking kool-aid?
From experience, even with one of the best health insurance plans in the country, we simply get nos, with NO explanation.

every bill and pay it. Costs have to be controlled or they are infinite. There are things medicare and medicaid don't pay for. My wife needs three wisdom teeth out and medicare won't cover a dime. If you think single payer means that no patient will ever receive a refusal then you are the one drinking kool-aid, or maybe beer.

The difference I'm talking about is when the government would tell the patient he can't pay for the care himself. That's a huge moral dilemma.

if you WANT to. That I know because my stepfather was a canacer surgeon, who lived in London for amny years, in PRIVATE practice, besides the work he did for the University.

health insurance?

Since I'm free to get my own insurance then its not a single payer system. Its a public option. You can't have it both ways. I'm sorry that point makes you mad.

I keep reading posts from single payer advocates about how they won't tolerate any system that allows private insurance to survive. Next time, I'll tell them about England.

Single payer has to be the starting demand and it has to be first on the table. Also, about 70% of Americans really do want it. This is a very strong bargaining position. Eventually, you bargain down to the strong option, preferably an improved Medicare for those who don't want private insurance. If you start at this point, instead, you have already told them that you don't feel strongly about what you are willing to settle for and you will get govt. subsidized private insurance, for the private option or govt. subsidized coops, which won't reform anything and that is what is happening. All it will do is open a new taxpayer funded candy store for the same old corrupt Wall Street insurers and PhRMA. Take it from me a person who lived in South America and who had to bargain for just about everything I bought. Of course, I learned from an expert, my mother. I wish she were alive today to tell the Democrats how to do it.

given the same stature as other plans being offered. Therefore it is compared to other plans as a legitimate alternative when looking at price and efficiency. That in itself educates people.

The "single payer will never pass" meme is an insurance company creation from 1972 when it was taken off the table by kennedy in favor of HMO's. The insurance company does not want to see single payer anywhere near the table ever. They understand what some on the left don't. Just considering it as a viable alternative means the public will be educated and more than likely, sooner rather than later, forcefully demand it from their representatives. Goodbye for profit primary care insurance.

...and celebrate the idea that you showed up at all! :party:

Sam (west wing) quotes aside, we're not getting single payer. You need complete political-institutional change for that, and we don't have it. But when people talk about needing to compromise, or Clinton talks about not being able to get the "whole loaf" right now, I say that single payer is "whole loaf." Public option is the compromise. It's the lowest you can go before health reform becomes meaningless, in my opinion.

There ARE points in every bill where a compromise is no longer good, or no longer a compromise. Going from single payer to a public option is a compromise. Going from a public plan to zero pubic plan is not a compromise - that's a capitulation.

The trouble is that among Democrats even the Public Option is not agreed on. So we're fighting to even get that through. Kent Conrad comes out today saying he'll vote against any public option. I'm not surprised by I still hate how the Democratic party works. I think our concept of "big tent" is bullshit. First - its only "big" as you move rightward - it is not at all big as you move leftward.

Second and related - those that the party demands "must be heard" are moderates and conservatives, while liberals are asked to be quiet, or marginalized and honest to god leftists are simply laughed out of the room, even though they're almost completely correct on virtually all of their observational criticisms of what's wrong with our political system. Even if there's disagreement about what to do about it, shouldn't that count for something?

Listening to Obama speak at the town hall in MT today he referred to the effort as "Health Insurance Reform". I believe he has reconciled himself to limiting reform to essentially new rules on the health insurance industry regarding coverage for pre-existing conditions and coverage between jobs or job loss. I hope I'm wrong, but that's the way I read it now.