There seems to be some confusion here, even among well-informed readers, as to what the public option is and is not. And given that this particular bit of policy has become ALL THAT MATTERS — pro- and contra — to many folks about the health care bill, some clarification is in order.
- What is it? The “public option” would be a government-run alternative to private insurance.
- How is it funded? Just like normal insurance: You pay premiums. It's not free.
- What are the supposed advantages? Assuming enough people buy into it (see below), it would get to bargain with providers for low rates based on big volume — the Wal-Mart of health care.
How they would do this is a significant question right now: A “strong” public option would use Medicare reimbursement rates for providers, which tend to be lower than private insurers. A “weak” public option would just be another insurer; it might be able to bargain for lower prices, but not as low as Medicare rates.
Here's a chart for the “strong” public option:
As a government entity, there would be no profit motive. If you think (as I do) that the health insurance industry adds no value to actual health care delivery, then the government would be more efficient at actually managing the financing of health care.
- Who gets to use it? Good question — that's currently also under debate and negotiation. That's why the status of the prospective Health Insurance Exchange — analogous to our Connector here in MA — and who is eligible to use it, is such a big deal. Read Ezra — please.
- Is it a “government takeover of health care”? Not even close. The government would be competing alongside private insurers.
- Will it lead to single payer — i.e. complete government financing of health care? Some people, like Michael Moore, think that it will displace private insurance; but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says it won't displace private insurance.
- Is it Medicaid? Is it Medicare? Is it S-CHIP? No, no and no. Those are entitlements — benefits that are extended to people deemed eligible (the poor, old, and kids respectively), paid for by tax dollars. Again, the public option for health insurance would be paid for by premiums; it's not a “free lunch.”
- What are other examples of government “public options” to private products or services? Federal Stafford Loans for students. State universities. Certain housing loan programs.
- Is it really that damn important? Look, there are a lot of moving parts in this legislation. It's a super-complex issue. It's a big and important thing, but it's not the only important thing. Put it this way: It's not worth giving away everything else — guaranteed issue, community rating, a strong Exchange — to get a public option. But it's not worth giving up, either. Unfortunately, the only people who really know the state of play in negotiations are … the people in the negotiations.
So for our purposes, I think it's actually more important to state a set of humane principles, rather than get hung up on the policy too much. I'm certainly not arguing for policy illiteracy — just that we want to keep our eyes on the prize:
Everyone, everyone, should be able to get to a doctor when sick. And you shouldn't have to go broke for getting sick. To me, there is no bottom line other than these.
There is no shortage of good ideas to get us there, or most of the way there. But we do need political will. I think the political will comes from an appeal to human decency, not fealty to any technical approach. Any policy detail can be attacked; but I don't see any real argument against people having health care.
Eyes on the prize.
Update: Our friend Shep has come by and posted some strenuous objections to the public option. Aside from the “j'accuse!” tone, they're interesting … but they all come down to this: “The public option will work and compete effectively! And that's bad!”
Well OK then.
take for example Hawaii
<
p>Now, I realize that these aren’t the same types of reforms, but it’s certainly not apples and oranges. More like Granny Smith and Golden Delicious Apples. What is to stop people who have private health insurance from saying “well eff this” en masse and shifting to the public option?
<
p>I read the CBO thing, but even your chart doesn’t match up with the data they used.
<
p>Your chart shows 17% for the family and 31% lower for individuals.
<
p>
<
p>That hasn’t been decided yet? Seems super-duper important.
You’re damn right it is. Maybe the most important part of reform. It creates a new marketplace for health insurance … but for whom?
<
p>The chart is from the Lewin Group. Their data is going to be different from CBO. The line on the CBO is that they tend to be verrry conservative (small “c”) with predictions on savings; there are all kinds of smart people — like, say, David Cutler of Harvard — with smart ideas about saving money in health care, and the CBO basically throws up its hands and says, “we can’t measure that.” That’s how they roll — it’s not wrong, it’s just extremely cautious and circumscribed.
<
p>People shifting to the public option from private insurance is indeed a possibility! The question is whether you think that’s ok on principle or not. I think it’s fine, and the CBO seems to think private insurers will compete OK with the federal plan.
<
p>Your Hawaii case is not really comparable, since as the article says, it was paid for with “public funds”, i.e. tax dollars. So that would be more like S-CHIP “crowding out” private insurance — that happens on the margins, but apparently not very much. Again, the “public option” would be paid for by subscriber premiums, not tax $.
Are they really a reliable source, given that they answer to the largest health insurance company?
therefore Lewin Group answers to me. don’t worry, i will get in touch with Lewin himself, or herself, and have ’em post here.
What makes you think corporate executives care about their shareholders?
<
p>If they did, would they still be getting their outrageous compensation packages? Would they still be able to funnel corporate profits into (mostly) right-wing causes?
<
p>Heck, they and their lapdog Board of Directors won’t allow even the most modest of shareholder rights, an ADVISORY vote on executive compensation packages, an advisory vote that they could still ignore!
<
p>They always resist shareholder petitions asking them to merely list which political causes they are spending corporate funds (i.e., the shareholders’ money) on, much less let shareholders have a say on how much and to whom they spend them.
Their earlier shots at this assumed no savings from MedPAC reform or Comparative Effectiveness.
mostly because it will be long (I thought about it in the best place ever to think: the shower) and I don’t want teeny tiny columns.
Package delivery by USPS is another example.
I believe this is one example cited by the President (in context that the USPS hasn’t been the downfall of private couriers such as UPS, FedEx, etc).
<
p>Though given the post office’s own financial situation, this may not be the ideal comparison.
makes it a great example. They’re not subsidizing the cost with money from the tax collector — they’re raising their rates to alleviate the red ink.
Clear, simple, and to the point. To bad the MSN can’t seem to convey such a clear question and answer session without adding so much inaccurate drama to it.
The public option IS nationalization.
<
p>Your graph proves it. What employer or individual in their right mind is going to continue to purchase private health insurance for its employees when “public option” premiums are “20% to 30%” LESS THAN fee-for-service.
<
p>Don’t you see this? If not, then you’re ignorant of the most basic economic principals and business finance. If you don’t disagree, then you’re simply lying.
<
p>Let me highlight two of your misconceptions, or as the case may be, lies:
<
p>(1) the key in all this is who sets the premiums. In the public option, politics sets the premiums, and premiums will be lower, much lower, than what the costs really are. You cannot prove otherwise. So the “20% to 30%” can be reset to “40% to 50%” because politics, not the market, will set the premiums;
<
p>(2) It doesn’t have to be free, just cheaper, to eliminate the private market for health insurance. Government can always, and will always, make up the loss with other tax revenues. Private industry cannot do this.
<
p>The government NEVER prices anything according to the market. Name something. The real cost to ride the MBTA is $5.20, not $2.00. Government makes up the MBTA’s loss through taxpayer subsidies.
<
p>Where does the CBO get their trillion dollar, public-option deficit numbers from? That’s ON TOP OF PREMIUMS paid in. Medicare and Part D Rx are prime examples of this … despite premiums paid, both programs are running into default and racking up trillion dollar unfunded liabilities.
<
p>You cannot assure anyone that this isn’t how the “public option” will work once in place. This is exactly HOW IT WILL WORK.
<
p>Who is to prevent simply lowering the premiums (or increasing the program benefits) to eliminate all private competition?
<
p>For once I agree with Michael Moore.
You blurted: “Government can always, and will always, make up the loss with other tax revenues. Private industry cannot do this.”
There is a popular freemarketeer term – efficiency. Heard of it?
<
p>I love this part: You cannot assure anyone that this isn’t how the “public option” will work once in place. This is exactly HOW IT WILL WORK.
<
p>Certitude is the crutch of a weak mind. -JMM
and this is by no means a field of expertise for me…
<
p>
<
p>Insurance isn’t bushels of corn. The products vary quite a bit in terms of convenience, coverage, copays, and the like. The gov’t plan may be the most inexpensive on the market, but that doesn’t mean it will be preferred by everyone. After all, McDonalds offers cheap hamburgers, but they haven’t put all other hamburger restaurants out of business. Even if Mickey Dees was free people would still buy hamburgers from other places.
<
p>Your concern is based around the conviction that the US will cross-subsidize the public option with funds from elsewhere. That may happen, it may not.
<
p>
<
p>Yes, but you cannot prove other-otherwise. I agree it’s a possibility; one I’m sure the folks on the right side of the aisle will work hard to prevent.
<
p>
<
p>Not exactly, but private industry is remarkably capable of pushing off externalities on others. This occurs in the medical fields just as in others — everything from “wallet checks” to patient dumping.
<
p>
<
p>The Post Office, since 1970. Revenue-neutral, not just overall, but within each class of shipping. First class breaks even, packages break even, etc.
<
p>You’ll note how, despite the government efficiency in providing door-to-door service to every American, they still haven’t eliminated UPS, FedEX, MailBoxes Etc, et al.
<
p>
<
p>To be glib, Republicans and Blue Dog Dems. I don’t know the history of the USPS, or how it’s revenue-neutral status came to be. I’m not suggesting that the public option will play out like the USPS, nor that it should — after all, postage stamps and pulmonary surgery aren’t apples and apples.
<
p>
<
p>Personally, I think you raise some really important concerns, although your tone and absolutely certain assumption of the future isn’t so helpful. I also think that this is exactly the sorts of issues that the GOP leadership ought to be raising. Instead, they’re talking about death panels and other nonsense. Not just the rank-and-file, but the leaders themselves. The GOP lack of leadership from the top has prevented an honest, important debate from taking shape.
Medicare sets the prices it will pay not based on any market — the government just decides. Hospitals are required to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients at the cost the government sets.
<
p>Right now those public systems are bankrupting everybody else, who are paying higher premiums to make up for the losses from the government programs.
<
p>If you put Medicare pricing into the public option, and put mandates on the private insurers, it will drive all private insurers out of business by driving up their rates even more. When all the private insurers are gone, there will be nobody to make up the difference for the low rates the government pays. At that point, either the hospitals go out of business, or you see higher taxes to pay for the promises the government makes, or you’ll see government rationing (end of life etc), or a bunch of other ways the government gets out of actual delivering on its promises.
… the remarkable thing is that most providers still decide to take money from Medicare anyway. Private doctors are free to look at Medicare’s terms and decide they don’t want to play, and certainly that does happen sometimes. But the notion that the this is somehow ‘anti-market’ is a little far fetched.
Indeed. Your comment is riddled with untruths or red herrings.
<
p>No, the CBO says they will live side-by-side. So, that’s what I’m going by.
<
p>But in the end, so what? If the government provides a service better, more equitably, and more efficiently than private companies … then the private companies can go pound sand, as far as I’m concerned. (And the opposite holds true as well!) But my guess is that they won’t, since that’s what the folks who are supposed to know say.
<
p>The trillion dollars-over-ten-years figure includes the subsidies. That’s the expensive part. The “strong” public option saves money. Are you against saving money? Or are you not really a conservative?
<
p>Regarding price setting: Some places don’t take Medicare — they don’t like the prices. Now, will the public option put downward pressure on prices? Hell, I hope so. Does Wal-Mart put downward pressure on prices? Is that good? Do you like saving money?
<
p>(Your MBTA point is silly. How much is the real cost for drivers to ride on paved roads? Ah, taxpayer subsidies …)
bostonshepherd,
<
p>Apparently, you think “nationalization” is a dirty word. Why? Is nationalizing always a bad thing and in all circumstances? [For example, do you think it was bad for the FDR administration to take over private manufacturers to boost war production during WWII?]
<
p>You seem to fear having the government run anything. Does this mean you’d like to outsource the Defense Department to say, Halliburton and Blackwater? Do you think the police should be replaced by private investigators? Would you rather rely on private industry for safe drinking water than say, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)?
<
p>Maybe you agree that it’s an appropriate role for government to provide some functions, like for the common defense and safe drinking water, just not health care. Does this mean you’re in favor of repealing Medicare and ending the VA health system? After all, those are both widely popular government-run health care programs.
<
p>Finally, you ask,
<
p>Just how naive are you? Do you really think private health insurers will unilaterally disarm once this bill passes and stop all Congressional lobbying and campaign contributions?
<
p>Listen carefully and you, too, will hear the constant whining of private health insurers to Congress about the necessity of a “level playing field.” I’d be shocked if the public option will ever have any government subsidy at all — particularly given such a spineless Democratic Congress. Private health insurers and their lobbyists will assure it.
It think this is a good idea. Once the reform passes, and everyone sees that it is not the end of the world, there should be no political consequences. Of course, the Republicans will try to use it as talking points in the next elections. So what? The Republicans have lost so much credibility anyway, it will take more than passing health care reform to bring them back to life. I think there will be BIGGER consequences to the Dem Party if health care reform is not passed.
<
p>
I bought a house 8 years ago. So far, I have refinanced twice, going from a 30 year fixed at 7.25% to a 15 year fixed at 4.75%. The VA loan is a solid Plan B. Thanks for being there, Uncle Sam.
Ned, from MrMillCity.com wrote this over at Left in Lowell:
<
p>If you aren’t aware of the cl&sterf&ck in Lowell, this will give you the gist. There is sooooooooo much more, but that would be highjacking.
so that would, in effect, cause the private insurers to lower their rates to keep their customers. In theory.
<
p>And because the government should be able to negotiate for lower drug prices that savings would be passed along as well( unless of course you had already bargained that part away as reports suggest the White house has done to obtain favorable ads about the reform bill).
<
p>Let’s face it, without a PO, we are giving the insurance industry 47 million new customers, subsidized by us the taxpayer, and allowing the insurance industry to keep asking for( maybe they won’t even have to ask like a public utility does) and probably getting rate increases.
<
p>If we just want to deal with insurance reform i.e. not allowing insurance companies to exclude on the basis of a pre-existing condition or use recission then it’s just insurance reform.
<
p>Health care reform allows people a real choice about price as well as all the other things mentioned.
10% coinsurance on Physician Insurance
25% coinsurance of Prescription Coverage
<
p>$5000 indiv. out of pocket before they pick up 100%
<
p>That is A LOT of Money when you add it up for someone that may have a chronic condition, and let’s face it, many people that cannot afford insurance probably have a chronic condition. That is A LOT of invoices that will be coming their way. I find it hard to believe no one wants to see a schedule of benefits for these plans…
<
p>That almost breaks down this way even though I have a lower out of pocket than this plan touted above:
<
p>Eligibility
Dependent Eligibility To All 19 Year(s)
<
p>Dependent Maximum Age Limit All 25 Year(s)
<
p>Contract Administration
Claim Filing Limit All 15 Month(s)
<
p>General Basis Of Payment
General Basis Of Payment Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Stop Loss Limitations
Individual Out Of Pocket Calendar Year Participating Provider $2,000
<
p>Family Out Of Pocket Calendar Year Participating Provider $4,000
<
p>Maximum Benefits
<
p> Comprehensive Benefits
Inpatient Hospital – Medical
Inpatient Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Inpatient Dental Benefits
Inpatient Dental Maximum Days All 3 Day(s)
<
p>Inpatient Hospital-Nervous/Menta
Inpatient Nervous/Mental Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Inpatient Nervous/Mental Days Calendar Year Participating Provider 30 Day(s)
<
p>Inpatient Substance Abuse
Inpatient Substance Abuse Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Inpatient Substance Abuse Calendar Year Maximum Exclusive Provider Network
<
p>Substance Abuse Per Calendar Year Maximum Participating Provider 30 Day(s)
<
p>Skilled Nursing Facilities
Skilled Nursing Facility Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Ambulance Benefits
Ambulance Pay All 90%
<
p>Air Ambulance Benefits
Air Ambulance Pay All 90%
<
p>Emergency Room And Emergency Diagnosis Benefit
Emergency Room Pay All 90%
<
p>Urgent Care Pay All 90%
<
p>Emergency Room Physician
Emergency Room Physician Pay All 90%
<
p>Outpatient Hospital – Medical
Outpatient Medical Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Outpatient Surgery Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Outpatient Nervous/Mental
Outpatient Nervous/Mental Copayment Per Visit Participating Provider $20
<
p>Outpatient Nervous/Mental Visit Maximum Per Calendar Year All 50 Visit(s)
<
p>Outpatient Day Care Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Outpatient Substance Abuse
Outpatient Substance Abuse Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Outpatient Substance Abuse Copayment Per Visit Participating Provider $20
<
p>Outpatient Substance Abuse Visit Maximum Per Calendar Year All 50 Visit(s)
<
p>Ambulatory Surgical Centers
Ambulatory Surgical Center(ASC) Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Home Health Care Benefits
Home Health Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Hospice Care Benefits
Hospice Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Medical While Hospitalized
Medical While Hospitalized Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Adult Physical Exam & Immunization Bene
Physical Exam Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Physical Exam Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Immunization Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Adult Preventive Services
Adult Preventive Office Visit Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Adult Preventive Office Visit Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Routine Prostate Screening Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Routine Cervical Cancer Screen Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Routine Mammography Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Other Cancer Screenings
Other Cancer Screening Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Child Routine Preventive Benefit
Exam For Child Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Child Exam Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Child Immunization Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Physician Home/Office Benefits
Physician Home Office Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Physician Home Office Per Visit Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Allergy Serum Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Physician Home Office Consultations
Physician Home Office Consultation Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Physician Home Office Consultation Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Professional Nervous/Mental
Professional Nervous/Mental Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Professional Nervous/Mental Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Professional Nervous/Mental Visit Calendar Year Participating Provider 50 Visit(s)
<
p>Nervous/Mental Medical While Hospitalized Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Bereavement Counseling
Bereavement Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Professional Substance Abuse
Professional Substance Abuse Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Professional Substance Abuse Medical While Hospitalized Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Professional Substance Abuse Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Professional Substance Abuse Visit Calendar Year Participating Provider 50 Visit(s)
<
p>Diagnostic X-Ray & Lab
Diagnostic X-Ray & Lab Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Allergy Testing Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Imaging Centers
Imaging Centers Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Physical Therapy Copayment Per Visit Participating Provider $20
<
p>Physical Therapy Visit Per Calendar Year Participating Provider 90 Visit(s)
<
p>Chiropractic Benefits
Chiropractic Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Chiropractic Copayment Per Visit Participating Provider $20
<
p>Chiropractic Per Calendar Year Maximum Participating Provider 26 Visit(s)
<
p>Acupuncture
Rehabilitation Therapies
Speech Therapy Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Speech Visit Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Speech Therapy Visit Maximum Per Calendar Year Participating Provider 90 Visit(s)
<
p>Occupational Therapy Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Occupational Copayment Per Visit Participating Provider $20
<
p>Occupational Therapy Visits Per Calendar Year Participating Provider 90 Visit(s)
<
p>Cardiac Rehabilitation Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Hemodialysis Benefits
Hemodialysis Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Chemotherapy Benefits
Chemotherapy Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Radiation Therapy
Radiation Therapy Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Surgery Benefits
Surgery Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Second Surgical Opinion Consultation Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Second Surgical Opinion Consultation Per Visit Participating Provider $20
<
p>Post Surgical Vision
Glasses Following Surgery Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Glasses Following Surgery Occurrence Participating Provider 1 Occurrence(s)
<
p>Contacts Following Surgery Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Contacts Following Surgery Occurrence Participating Provider 1 Occurrence(s)
<
p>Obstetrical Benefits
Elective Abortion Copayment Participating Provide
r $20
<
p>Obstetrical Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Obstetrical Per Visit Copayment Participating Provider $20
<
p>Newborn Nursery For Subscriber Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Newborn Nursery For Spouse Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Complicated Delivery Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Sterilization/Infertility
Sterilization Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Infertility Treatment Pay Participating Provider 50%
<
p>Infertility Life Maximum Participating Provider $5,000
<
p>Durable Medical Equipment
Durable Medical Equipment Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Hearing Aid Pay Participating Provider 100%
<
p>Orthotics Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Prosthesis Pay All 90%
<
p>Pediatric Asthma Equipment
Temporal Mandibular Joint Related Services
Temporal Mandibular Joint Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Infusion Therapy
Home Infusion Pay Participating Provider 90%
<
p>Bariatric Center Of Expertise
Bariatric Institutional Prov Pay Coe 90%
<
p> Participating Provider 50%
Your point could have been made without hundreds of lines of detail…
You all dont care that the plan in order for it to pay 100%, you have to spend over 7000 plus premium (I would say close to $9000 combined). That is a lot of invoices and I don’t believe that people that need this plan can afford that. Do you? I can’t afford my plan and my wife and I make $65000 a year combined. I find it interesting that everyone talks around the benefits of the public option but don’tactually talk about the plan that you would get. Do you all care about the product that you would get? Would you buy a house without an inspection? Or a car without actually looking at it?
I really don’t care about rankings, democrat vs republicans, donkeys vs elephants, or insects vs bats for that matter. I care about what the people are going to get. After all, that is what this is all about…life. Life
vsdeath. Not republican vs democrats, that is just plain freaking stupid to have in regards to an issue that can ultimately kill you or put you into remission. You cannot put a value on human life. I find it funny that car dealers are pulling out of the Clunker Programs because payments are taking too long to process and that the government is closing the program with only 1.6 billion spent (about half). What do you think you are going to get with an ERISA modeled plan that the government will ultimately cut the checks for. Good luck with that. I’ll stick with paying $458 a month for my wife in order for claims to be processed correctly, fairly, and in a timely manner meanwhile following Code of Massachusetts Regulations. I remember Obama touting that he wants to do away with State Mandates in his electoral debates. The Code of MA is there to protect the citizens of this state, not harm them. I am done trying to convince people, you’ll get what you get and I won’t tell you “I told you so”. I stuck my neck out as a health insurance “clerk” as someone so eloquently put in order to give good advice and opinions mildly skirting ethics and compliance due to my misfortunes and what I have learned first hand being an employee and a customer at the same time. Can any of you tell me you have the same experience?The inclusion of a public option in health care reform is absolutely essential to ensuring that this change serves the people and not the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The delivery of the country into the hands of the democratic party came with the responsibility to change the way Washington does business and the democratic party has much to lose if it appears to sell out the interests of the common good for big business and small victories. The majority of this country supports the public option and it is important that this majority becomes a visible entity.
<
p>In this spirit, I propose a Public Option Day with your support. I will be holding an event at the Massachusetts State House in Boston on September 2nd from noon-2pm and also encouraging those who cannot attend the event but support the inclusion of a public option to wear a unifying color (blue) to show our majority status. If you are in the Boston Area, please come out! And if you are elsewhere, make Public Option Day happen in your own city and we can become a unified voice. Please show us your support in this effort and we can win the reform that we and future generations require.
<
p>http://www.facebook.com/group….
The entire case by reasonable people against the public option seems to come from people who have had bad experiences with government programs.
<
p>It boils down to: Medicaid/Medicare/ERISA-oversight/etc screwed me or someone I love, therefore any expanded role for government in healthcare will screw everyone.
<
p>Besides massively generalizing from very narrow experience, this argument overlooks government’s thoroughgoing role in the entire healthcare system. There is no corner of healthcare that is not shaped by government intervention. The U.S. spends more PUBLIC money on healthcare than most universal-care countries.
<
p>THE POINT OF THE PUBLIC OPTION IS NOT TO CREATE A PERFECT HEALTH CARE PLAN.
<
p>It is to make the government’s role one that serves a broader public interest and gives the public more power.
<
p>Remember that in most of the states where opposition to the public option is strongest among the political elite, the health insurance market is owned by one single insurer. Think about that. It’s all about denying choice.
OK…Our MA Health Connector…Tell me, why is it consistently more expensive getting insurance through the connector than it is through getting it with the insurance company directly. I know, because that is what I did because I don’t see the logic in giving the state a few more cents if I can get it cheaper elsewhere….Try comparing BCBSMA plans with the plans on the connector…They will ring in cheaper. It is a minimal amount, but still is more expensive. Can you say overhead for some state trained dweeb that ultimately won’t know the policies in the first place. If it is not to create a perfect platform, then why do it at all? Isn’t this what this is all about “REFORM” :
<
p>Reform Definition
v.tr.
To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.
<
p>To abolish abuse or malpractice in: reform the government.
To put an end to (a wrong). See synonyms at correct.
To cause (a person) to give up harmful or immoral practices; persuade to adopt a better way of life.
<
p>I am sooo sick of the red/blue labels you are all putting on this. When the towers went down, this country was united with one thing…Making the people that did this pay whether you are red or blue. I see no differences in this. This is about life, ultimately about your wives, children, husbands, mothers, and fathers. I do not have narrow minded experiences because I work and have worked in he industry for almost ten years.
Of course the plan will be the best that can be put together, but it will face challenges and it will have to adapt … ie REFORM, which is an ongoing project.
<
p>The Mass. plan is a great example. Right now we’re much better off as a state having this ongoing effort. You sound like you are in the toughest eligibility slice right now. There are lots of people who make less, who had no coverage, but now qualify for Masshealth or Commonwealth Care or Choice and are very glad of it.
<
p>BTW, I’ve worked in education for 10 years, but I wouldn’t make blanket denunciations of public ed based on some of the problems I’ve seen. And I am someone who probably won’t send his son to public school in the City of Boston because they’re not good enough and I have options. It’s a great comparison, actually. Education is a right that the government guarantees. It often fails to deliver but we accept that it’s a communal project we all have a stake in. No one plans on giving up. ONLY AN EXTREME FRINGE REJECTS THE IDEA OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN PRINCIPLE OR SAYS THAT IT CANNOT SUCCEED NO MATTER WHAT.
<
p>I don’t see any excessive red/blue labeling going on here. This post and its comment thread are an explicit effort to talk realities rather than ideology. Everyone here agrees with your assessment of what’s at stake.