I don't care if the public option is watered down.

[Dawgs]

The point of the public option is to eventually move toward a medicare/single payer system. Without it, any health care reform will eventually evolve back into the current shitty ass system.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. what if it's so watered down as to be ineffectual? How would that move anything anywhere?

What would the mechanism of movement to single payer be?

Here's the deal. Medicare wasn't called eldercare because it was supposed to be just the beginning.

It wasn't watered down at all, for those 65 and over. It started with a huge pool of people enrolled from day one. It works pretty well for the age group it was directed toward. Yet even a functioning and well liked system hasn't moved the political system that much.

What if Medicare had been watered down. Would it even still be around? And would it have provided a positive roll modle for single payer or would it be touted as proof that single payer doesn't work?

[Dawgs]

5. Medicare would still be around, because even watered down it would have worked.

Remember, the elderly did not a have a choice back then. They would have taken it just because there wasn't any other option. It would have eventually been changed to work better.

[Oregone]

9. Holy crap. The existence of Medicare in its current form couldn't disprove your thesis more

The public option wont grow and expand and become single-payer no matter how much magic, elves, and fairies you throw at it. This is all fantasy gibberish. Just like Medicare, it will remain dedicated to serving a small percentage of the market it is meant to service, as to not interfere with the operations of private industry.

Yes, Medicare works. Its still around. But it certainly hasn't become Medicare for all over decades. Don't be a fool and believe the firewalled "public option" will miraculously become the "Public Option for All" in any reasonable amount of time.

If you want single-payer, you oughta be fighting for expanding Medicare, not for fantasies based on some wild eyed interpretation of the purpose of the "public option"

[quantass]

2. Control in the House/Senate and the WH and u settle for Watered Down? WTF...

If you are willing to give away your daughter, your home, and your country after being crowned the king then i see no future in sight for a true single-payer system in the future. The democrats are holding all the cards and the closer they can get to a true "working system" the better their odds at getting it right in the end.

Watering down is silly.

[VMI Dem]

3. Its called being a wuss.

[Dawgs]

8. Huh? Where did I say I was settling for watered down?

You are obviously missing my point. I want, and actually expect to get, a STRONG public option.

What concerns me is not getting a public option at all; not that I would settle for a weak one.

Wow. Maybe you should reading past the title next time.

[Oregone]

4. LOL. "The point of {Medicare} is to eventually move towards a medicare/single payer system"

:rofl:


Hey....its called Google. Use it. You'll be amazed to find America already has Medicare. It might be easier to just expand it actually.

BTW, the "public option's" ability to grow into single-payer should be judged on the historical precedent set by Medicare's ability to do so over decades.

[SoCalDem]

7. If that had not been the goal, it would have been called "ElderCare"

It's too bad that Johnson had been weakened, and was unable to ram the whole package through..medicare for all.. we had the money then..:grr:

[John Q. Citizen]

12. We have the money, even more so. It's cheaper. It's easier, and it's far more

efficient.

We currently spend 2.5 trillion a year, and that amount is more than enough to do it.

Think of the savings on workers comp, basic auto liability, even landlord/homeowner house insurance policies that carry liability for guests or handy people.

When everyone is covered there is no need to cover them again.

[SoCalDem]

15. The "we" I was referencing was the 1960's booming economy

The "we" who spend those current trillions, is an amalgamation of borrowed money from many sources.

In the '60's we were riding high as a country..Now everyone has the "yips"..and cries every time they see their own shadow:(

[John Q. Citizen]

18. but the fact remains that a penny saved is a penny earned. And the savings

in a Medicare for all system is so great that it makes more sense now than it did then.

i have a hard time when people say we can't afford it. the reason is because it saves money it doesn't cost money. Yet some people are still under the impression that it cost money. So i make a point of always saying that, no, it saves money.

The Obama plan will cost a trillion over ten years.

Single payer would save us 500 billion plus the trillion we don't have to spend, netting a total of a trillion and a half in savings over ten years.

Of course that trillion and a half wouldn't be going into the insurance company pockets, and wouldn't be going into big pharma's pockets, which is why they like the Obama plan.

[SoCalDem]

19. I am ALL in favor of medicare for ALL

but our lily-livered legislators cannot just do it.

In the interim, I prefer:

50+ could "buy in" on Medicare
SCHIP would cover until age 25

26-49 could use "traditional" employer-based or a public-plan/online marketplace/co-op/whatever the phrase of the day is, unless they became disabled or seriously ill and could not work.

and it costs what it costs.. we could cut back on the war thing and the military toys.

[Dawgs]

10. What does the current medicare system have to with a public option.

Just because a medicare system with restrictions on it didn't evolve into medicare for all, doesn't mean that a public option wouldn't.

And, certainly a plan with no public option, single payer or otherwise, certainly would never evolve into anything.

Wow!! Your one track mind isn't helping you much.

[Oregone]

13. "medicare system...didn't evolve into medicare for all, doesn't mean that a pulic option wouldn't"

Eh, its a pretty good indication actually.

Both will be firewalled to only be accessible to segments of the population that may not be financially/lgistically viable for the private industry to fully service.

11-12 million people on the public option in a decade seems to be no evolving behemoth to me.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Well, I do care.

If a watered down public option that is designed to fail is passed, it will be the poster child to kill off all health reform in the future. "Oh we tried that and it didn't work".

[freddie mertz]

11. You should care.

Especially of you believe what you wrote under the heading.

[dflprincess]

14. You'd better hope that the public option in HR3200 isn't what we get stuck with

it's pretty much designed to protect the health insurance companies and to see to it that most of us keep paying premiums to them for years to come. And, with the out of pocket ("cost-sharing") amounts it allows it doesn't do a whole lot to guarantee access to health care - only access to insurance. That's the system we have now and it doesn't work.

[grantcart]

16. exactly right once in place it will evolve

The big step is just getting it accepted in principle.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I do. They intend to force every breathing person to buy a product

and we need to have a very strong and viable public option. With out that, no bill will pass the House. It just will not. And it should not.