No Public Option?

Then why bother at all? If there is no public option, which was a compromise itself (tossing single payer under the bus), then where is the need for a law? It seems to me if all they are going to do in the end is adjust subsidies to the Insurance industry then it would be a lot easier to simply do it by regulation with no Congressional involvement at all.

Welcome once again to the world of defeat in the face of insurmountable victory.

it is just so depressing.

Co-op is the word of the day boys and girls.

Listening to him is not much different than listening to Grassley.

I mean Chuck Todd is dog shit, regardless of what he or anyone else has said about health care. The fuckwad is nothing more than a shill for the Republican Party, its all he has ever been, and there is no sign what so ever that he has changed now that he's working for MSNBC

we need to start discussing the end game

First we need to get health care into the framework of the Government. Next we establish that health care is a right and then we move to the single payer option and just cut the profit motivated insurance companies out of the picture.

For profit businesses should not operate by fulfilling or denying people's rights.

They're just Republicans being Republicans. Expect no help there, and you won't be disappointed.

But plenty of Democrats are against the public option, and against any form of single-payer "socialist" medicine. Even some of the so-called "liberal" Democrats. The campaign contributions from Pharma-Med-Insurance lobbyists has corrupted them.

By the time the negotiations are done, we'll be lucky if we don't get pushed further into the stone-age.

:hi:

Edit to add: http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/25/john-kerry-you-said-what/

Beats me.

Profits over people = All American

Cash cow.

They wouldn't pay more than a guaranteed low percentage of their income for health insurance. The rest would be subsidized by the Government treasury, which due to progressive taxation, is milking the rich much more than the middle class.

Now that's an interesting assertion.

that are going to fund this travesty of a reform to a large degree (projected half a trillion $ over the next decade).

why people are not livid about this atrocity is absolutely beyond me.

No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
No, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

HELL NO!

Get it???

government run health care. they don't care that they could lose their jobs and insurance tomorrow, they just don't want death panels and to pay extra taxes.

Because if there was a choice between subsidized private insurance for the poor or no reform at all, the OP would choose no reform at all.

The insurance mandate will stay, but premiums will go up and subsidies will be cut. That means that we all have to pay for useless shitstain intermediaries.

We NEED a meaningful public option.

Last year I had surgery on my foot. I had to stay completely off it for a solid month, and my doctor prescribed a knee-walker to help me get around. The manufacturer my doc recommended said they could ship one for under $500 and get it to me in 3 days.

My insurer (one of the biggest in the business) said they'd cover it, but only if I got it through an "in-network provider."

Now, you might think the point of dealing with "in-network providers" would be that the insurer could negotiate cheaper prices; but apparently, no.

They gave me a list of over a dozen in-network providers, and I called them all. It turned out only one could provide the item – and it would take at least two weeks, partly because special authorization was required from the insurer, because this in-network provider's price to procure the item was over $1,000.

I called the appeals people at the insurer and I told them hey, we can get it quicker from the manufacturer and you'll save $500. The insurer could not have been less interested. They'd pay the $1,000, and I'd have to wait two weeks.

When the knee-walker finally arrived, it was an inferior model from a different manufacturer.

I have to at least ask whether the insurer and its in-network provider weren't splitting the mark-up at my employer's and ultimately all of our expense – i.e., they require me to accept an inferior product at twice the cost, then the insurer recovers the cost through premiums, plus collects a kick-back from the "preferred provider." (Not to mention the delay and other detriment to my well-being).

The VA is running a great single-payer system, and Medicare is running a great public option. I would gladly trade my private insurance for either.

(I'd rather have a bureaucrat between me and my doctor than someone who views my illness as a looting opportunity.)

Meanwhile, I'm afraid to speak frankly with my doctor for fear something I say might be used as an excuse to deny coverage.

Our healthcare money isn't lengthening our lives (we in the U.S. pay twice as much for healthcare than people in some 26 other nations, yet our life expectancies are much shorter; see chart here from ucsc.edu).

So, where is the money going?

Private insurers in the U.S. have had decades to show they can provide decent healthcare coverage, and have failed. Surprise! – they won't do it unless they HAVE to.

Theoretically, yeah, government could regulate private insurers into decent coverage. But as any "free marketeer" should concede, that would be the LEAST efficient way to do it! We'd have to actually regulate, we'd have to staff up enforcement, etc.

Clearly, the MOST efficient way is to give private insurers some COMPETITION!

I'm not saying just anything masquerading as a public option will do the job. But I have more faith in a delayed public option than in none.

PS: Congressional Dems REALLY need to focus on media reform. So long as conservatives control 98% of the "mainstream" media, you'll be dogged by misrepresentations and hysterics at every turn.

Many thanks, and best wishes, from your constituent,

to the rapacious insurance/health"care" corps; it's a bonanza for private profits at the expense of the taxpayers.

Plain and simple, if they fuck this up, they're done.

I have supported Obama all the way. I have thought he was the real thing. But as I've watched him, first catering to the right wing and now backing off the public option, I've come to think he's weak and just not tough and inexperienced. Think about Lyndon Johnson getting us Medicare in the first place. Imagine Johnson being damby-pamby about anything. He was called the master of the senate and for a reason. He knew how to push people and get things done. Obama lacks experience, just as he was accused of. Naturally, I see plenty of blame for the Senate. They do owe their souls to the insurance companies. But we have 60 votes in the Senate. We could push the Health Care Bill through with reconciliation. And to publicly announce Obama and the Senate are going soft on the public option is against all rules of warfare--and we are at war. I find myself hoping, that if the bill lacks public option, he will not be re-elected, along with a lot of his Democratic congesspeople. I am 70 yeas old and have Medicare and it has been wonderful. I have no vested interest in the public option. I just hate weakness and pandering. I am sick of the Democrats and their weakness. I no longer have the faith in Obama I had.

... vested intere$ts, NOT We The People.

See, after 8 grim yrs of Bush/Cheney fascism, the shadow govt obviously wanted to apply a friendlier face to the same-old-same-old, and just a large enough % of Americans can always be counted upon to then fulfill their own role in this fantasy movie script.

sad but true.

of course, McCain would've served their (ve$ted) interests much better, but... they couldn't stand the risk of any possible populist uprising, as people would've been up in arms and probably out in the streets at this point under the McCain/Palin (shudder) administration...

they are a rabble that stands for nothing. I don't just blame the blue dogs, I hold all of them responsible from the president on down. The next time a Democrat asks me for my vote I'm going to have to ask them to clarify what they really stand for and what they're feeling "bipartisan" about.

1. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying access to insurance based on pre-existing conditions.
2. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
3. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from raising premiums once you become ill.
4. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from imposing lifetime caps on coverage.
5. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from setting the premium based on your health status or gender.
6. Health insurance premiums would be free or subsidized up to 3-5 times poverty (depending on which version of the bill passes)

These are HUGE improvements. Not everything I ultimately want. What I want is single payer. But even this change without going to a single payer system would allow my daughter (who has two pre-existing conditions that cost around $50,000 a year to care for), and millions of others like her to have access to medical coverage. Currently she is struggling with an illness that leaves her too sick to be a full time student or work at a job that might provide health care, but not yet ill enough to qualify for SSI/SSD - but because she is 19 if she is not a full time student she loses access to insurance.

Personally - I don't think a public option is going to have any significant impact on the cost of health care. It is a symbolic gesture, at best, to those of us who want single payer. I am not willing to sacrifice real reform - the first in a decade since the gesture at reform in HIPPA - at the alter of public option (manageable but there might be too many other sacrifices to meaningful health insurance reform) or single payer (which is not a politically feasible option for health care reform).

If we are not getting single payer, we MUST have health insurance reform NOW.

that's why I said "why bother'.

If those were attempted to be imposed without legislation, they would be tossed out as exceeding the authority granted by congress.

Happens all the time. Go read the Federal Register.

the last time the PTO tried that trick by making substantive changes that were not authorized by congress - they were roundly smacked upside the head.

Regulations may only be imposed within the boundaries set by the authorizing legislation. If it isn't authorized by congress, the regulatory agency cannot regulate it. All that stuff you are reading in the Federal Register is either authorized by the legislation - or ripe for being tossed out on by a challenge if it is not. That's how regulation works. The fence is drawn by congress - regulatory agencies can fill in the detail, but they are strictly limited by the outer boundaries authorized by congress.

Health insursance would not be free--the government will take our taxes to inflate the profits of useless shitstain intermediaries. When that gets too expensive, premiums get raised and subsidies cut.

than is currently happening. The maximum permitted difference is 2:1, currently premiums at the top end of the scale are far more than double the premiums for an 18 year old. And once you hit retirement age you're into Medicare. There are also caps on profits in the bills, the last time I reviewed them=.

If ALL that happens is the insurance reform that is in all the leading bills, that will be HUGE. It won't make insurance available to everyone - since it isn't going to be free from per person/family out of pocket premiums, which is still ultimately going to be an unacceptable barrier. But there are millions of people who cannot afford insurance now - or cannot obtain it at any price - who would be able to afford and purchase insurance under the proposed reforms, and that's worth a lot even if it isn't perfect.

The last time there was any reform (HIPPA), all that was mandated was that each state provide some means for high risk individuals to purchase insurance - and allow anyone who had insurance to continue it. You see how well that has worked. Some states have no high risk insurance available (never bothered to adopt any), some have limited spaces available, and virtually all who have it (1) hide its availability and (2) charge multiple times what it costs to care for an average person in the age range for the premium. (For my 19 year old daughter the premium is $14,000 a year - the average cost for health care for a 19 year old is less than $2000 a year.) Health insurance reform would change that dramatically.

I'm not going to stomp my feet and insist on public option (or single payer) or nothing when tighter restrictions on how insurance companies are allowed to operate is within relatively easy reach, and will make it possible for so many more to avoid going bankrupt just to obtain access to health care. Although I'm pushing for more, the items I listed are my rock bottom - and need to be implemented immediately (not in 2013). As long as they are implemented (relatively) immediately, I could live with them as a start.

The outrageously high premiums permitted are also not acceptable.

currently being charged, those are not permitted under any of the bills.

Essentially everyone with the same policy must be charged the same thing (in the same geographical region), with no more than a 2:1 variation for age. IF the rest of it passes, I'm willing to let premiums vary somewhat with age - income generally does so some variation is not necessarily a bad thing.

Premiums are allowed to be 11% of income, and that doesn't even count allowing $10K in copays and deductibles for a family of two. Assume an income of $41K, and that is a totally unacceptable health care yearly bill of $14,510.

I'm flat out supporting NOTHING with age discrimination written into it.

This way they think they'll get to see a doctor.

I am never voting for ANY of them ever again.

I hope they all lose. Corporate pieces of shit (and I include Obama in this- I hate him more and more ever day).

reminds me of Microsoft

doing what their customers do not want.
because they can
.......................
if that isn't right
please enlighten me