Rebrand "public option"? Propose a new name, here.

Is "public option" a bad name for the public option?
Can you think of a better name? Post it here.

There needs to be a public option, it must cover 100%, and it must be available to all regardless of current employment, proof of hardship or lack thereof. Finally, this public option needs to be more than an option -- it needs to be enabled by default, or there must be a way to sign up for it instantly right there at the hospital or doctors office if it turns out your insurance has lapsed, or the isn't as much coverage as you need. It is difficult to manage paperwork when you are working day and night to keep it together.

I'll start.
"Instant Access Coverage"

It will probably be designed to provide insurance to unprofitable segments of the society

Instant Access Coverage

Of course, I actually like the idea
of something like American Health
Service... but that presupposes
a national single payer outcome,
which I would prefer anyway.

where did you hear that one? I like it, too. It connotes national pride.

by referring to it as an American Service, you ramp up the nationalistic pride and sense of duty to one's country significantly. Throw in health and you've got a national duty to ensure the health of it's citizens.

I *personally* also happen to like it's similarity to the British name, but then again I happen to be a fan of the British NHS.

Or "SHCBDJ".

...I failed all my marketing classes.

:cry:




But seriously, someone came up with "Americare" yesterday. That would be pretty catchy for the people.

But what about the re-education camps? ... oh yeah, thats Americore ... Americorp? :shrug:






:rofl:

Tie it to something to people like such as Medicare.

as in can't wait to get my AmeriCare signup package in the mail.

By associating it with the broader term, America, we are breaking the barriers of exclusion. It also side steps the issue of Medicare for all. MfA associates it with old people, some of whom we now know, have trouble sharing.

But if you say, everyone can sign up for AmeriCare, it will project the image that you want of everyone being in the same boat together.

then the pukes can come out against our health.

I like "the people's health", but that sounds too pinko

...who is fighting the battle to keep Americans healthy.

Kids: "General Health is here!"

General Health "Don't forget to march to the doctor for your annual check up!"



Hey, it could work.

but Im not sure if its taken...

Name it after the Republican party, make the boogers feel good.

That doesn't mean it can't be reconciled.

eta--didn't even see that above

if you oppose, then we must ask, why you do not support Medicare?

Make health care a matter of national defense.
Republicans are addicted to defense spending.

How can we defend the "Homeland" from terrorists
if we are sick or out of shape?
Take the cost from the Pentagon budget,
they won't even miss it.

If the Repubs want to come out against Medicare, let them.

That's one of the wasteful cost programs that's being ditched.

:hide:

Here are some context examples.

Obama:
"As one of those options, for us to be able to say, 'Here's a ______ _______ that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price, as one of the options for you to choose' -- I think that makes sense."

Obama:
"If you've got a private plan that works for you, that's great. But we want some competition. If the private insurance companies have to compete with a ______ ______, it'll keep them honest and it'll help keep their prices down."

Gibbs:
"As I've said -- now, yesterday and earlier today -- the president, his position, the administration's position, is unchanged: that we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in a private health insurance market. The president prefers the ______ ______ as a way of doing that. If others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That's what the president has said for months."

Sebelius:
"The president feels that having a ______ ______ side by side, same playing field, same rules, will give Americans choice and will help lower costs for everybody. And that's a good thing."

I think you've begun an immensely helpful exercise here that I hope some political staff who review DU pick up on, but the very fact that we've got to come up with a generic name that fits into a category that's been pre-determined by the very idiotic system we already have means that they've won the debate.

Your literally writing this out here in your most recent post has made this framing issue more vividly clear to me than ever before, so I thank you for it. But what if we said, screw having to come up with a name for a species that fits within their species level. Why don't we name a Kingdom, or Phyla, or just have a formal name and force them to fit with what we have? If we have to fit within their classification system, we've already lost.

So, I vote for a formal name, like the ones people are coming up with. Then the equivocating, overcompromising sentences Obama et al are making will stop. Name what we want, unapologetically. Here's what it is, what we're calling it, and why it's better.

My hesitation, my "apology" I suppose, is that "Their framing" is "Obama's framing". And I like Obama. My instinct is to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that his estimations of what is and is not possible in the current situation are sound. Are they not?

I mean, I practically worship the guy, and his wife even more, and I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt a lot more than other progressives, and I'm pretty left-wing. But I think he's bungling this one.

I'm also not happy with Goldman Sachs' infiltration of his admin, either.

I think he was afraid to tap into the rage of the public at the CEOs last Spring and properly use that. Now, that populism is getting rechanneled into bizarre rage about healthcare. Yes, 1/2th of those folks are hateful, racist, and ignorant, but the other half are just pissed off at the collapse of post-industrial society and have no idea why it's happening (which I believe is because of the endless-growth myth crashing up against the "limits to growth.") They want something, someone to blame. And his equivocating on this has allowed the rightwing CEOs to harness that populist rage for their own interests, first against healthcare reform . . but next? We know how this can play out. He needs to stop them, NOW, and retarget that rage where it belongs, or we'll be going down the Weimar Republic road.

And please don't apologize--you've begun an excellent discussion here. : - )

It just *works*, both as the option name and the actual program name. The only change I made in filling in the blanks was the grammar change of swapping out "a" for "an". Using your examples.

Obama:
"As one of those options, for us to be able to say, 'Here's an American Health Service that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price, as one of the options for you to choose' -- I think that makes sense."

Obama:
"If you've got a private plan that works for you, that's great. But we want some competition. If the private insurance companies have to compete with an American Health Service, it'll keep them honest and it'll help keep their prices down."

Gibbs:
"As I've said -- now, yesterday and earlier today -- the president, his position, the administration's position, is unchanged: that we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in a private health insurance market. The president prefers the American Health Service as a way of doing that. If others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That's what the president has said for months."

Sebelius:
"The president feels that having an American Health Service side by side, same playing field, same rules, will give Americans choice and will help lower costs for everybody. And that's a good thing."

Only thing that comes to mind for a catchy name.

The ignorant retards that form so much of this country hate government health care or socialized medicine, but they love Medicare.

So let's give them Medicare!

the right won't be able to support it FAST enough.............

maybe shortened to National Security ... as in ... "stop playing politics with National Security!"

I like the idea of including the word "American" or the prefix "Ameri-" That cashes in on national sentiments, and it's not dishonest to do so.

I'll let this go for a while, then may start a poll. I can send the result to WH and DNC......

:)

What Repuke would dare oppose that? O8)

zazen made a good point. Fitting the name in place of "public option" wherever it was used in the past is giving in to Obama's framing of the debate, literally. I like Obama, but his framing of the issue might not be the best to start with. So, I may have narrowed the focus of the question and introduced a bias.

Anyway, if anyone wants to turn this into a poll, go ahead. I'm kind of stuck.