"Medicare For More" vs. "Public Option?"

With the recent talk of compromise on the public option, I think we may need to re-frame the debate a bit? Lawrence O'Donnell, Rep. Anthony Weiner and others have rightly pointed out that Medicare is rooted in socialist ideals. In spite of this, Republicans (who are crying SOCIALIST about Obama's ideas on health care) will not renounce it. Thus, it is my humble suggestion that instead of promoting a "public option" Democrats should start using "Medicare For More" or similar terminology. Further, it seems to me, we can fold any public plan into the medicare umbrella so we needn't create an entirely new bureaucracy? But, that's another topic I suppose.

What says you? What are your ideas for re-framing the debate in a manner that exposes Republican ridiculousness?

:shrug:

medicare would be a great public option.

about it?

...people can turn in their Medicare cards.

:hi:

We should be using both.

Medicare for all up to 2x the poverty level.

Public option for everybody above that, with the lower end of the income scale having their premiums partially subsidized.

Private insurance for those who want more than that and can pay for it.


I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.

Is Health Canada means tested in any way?

If you leave any segment of society out of it, no matter how wealthy, they won't feel invested in the system and they'll be resentful. Because then they're paying into it and getting nothing from it. It leads to tension and class warfare.

That's why Social Security has been so successful. We all feel invested in it, no matter what our incomes.

I don't WANT Medicare. I LIKE the ability to choose my plan.

program offered under the same umbrella.

Need basic coverage for those who can't afford it? Medicare is fine.

For those who CAN afford it, doing something like expanding FEHBP would be preferable than forcing everybody into a single-payer plan, IMO.

I agree, the more options the merrier.

a public option.

should be changed.