Reply #70: The issues of subsidies is not inherently a part

[Ms. Toad]

of a public health option. A public health option has to do with who administers the plan - not who pays for it. And as I have said, every discussion I have heard by people with decision making/influencing authority limits it to the administering body limits the public health option to the question of who administers the plan.

The PNHP website certainly supports subsidized and/or single payer health care - but the articles I scanned on that site distinguish between a public health option/plan (which drives down the overall price by providing better managed competition) and subsidized/single payer access to health care. Which is my point - we need subsidized/single payer. I don't care who manages it - that has far less impact on whether people who need health care will have access to it than subsidizing it will have. What is being introduced (in every discussion I have heard) is solely over who manages the plan - which is consistent with Obama's position that single payer is off the table.

A merger of the two would certainly be better than nothing - but supporting a public health option is not the same as (nor does it inherently include) making access affordable to individuals who cannot afford it and/or are uninsurable. I will count it as a step in the right direction when I see a statement by Kennedy that what he supports as a public health option must include a subsidy so that it is affordable to people who are currently not able to access health care because it is linked to health, wealth, employment, or ability to maintain status as a full time employee. Until then, this may even be a step backwards because it is no better than what we have now - and gives false hope which undercuts our motivation to push for real change.