Is anyone else completely insulted by Democrats' attempts to redefine the public option?

[rudy23]

As if it's an insignificant difference whether it's run by a private company, or if it's only accessible to 5-10% of us.

I guess it's easier to redefine a term like "public option" or even "stong and robust" than it is to go oppose their corporate financiers on behalf of the people who worked our butts off to put them into office.

I'm disgusted with these insulting attempts, along with the meme that those of us who are unsatisfied with their capitulation to the same industry that is killing and bankrupting so many Americans are "complainers" because we're not happy with a public option that is set up to fail.

They are going to have serious problems at the voting booth if they think they can get away with this insult to our intelligence. I'm sick of being talked to like a kindergartener, I want the Barack Obama who spoke to us as adults during the primaries!

[derby378]

1. Can you elaborate?

Who exactly is doing this? A link would help.

[rudy23]

5. Anyone who advocates triggers, an "exchange" or limited access is redefining "public option"

I don't know where to start with the links. Open today's paper. Anywhere you see a Democrat talk about "a public option" instead of "THE public option", you're sure to find further weaseling on what their definition of public option is.

[tridim]

2. No, because they're not.

I am insulted by your 24/7 anti-progressive pessimism, but I'll get over it.

[rudy23]

4. Redefining the public option so drastically is anti-progressive.

A public option that would be available only to the poorest patients would be too small, and too full of the sickest patients to be an effective way to compete with private insurers.

That's a different definition of "public option" than where we started from. Moving the goalposts on this is what's anti-progressive, not my criticism on BEHALF of progressives.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. This has been part of the discussion from the beginning

That's why the word "robust" is bandied about so much. "Robust" is a standin for "real". A robust public option would be funded by taxpayers and would be available to anyone who chose it as their option.

A gutted public option is one that is severely limited to the sickest or poorest( reverse cherry picking) and is supposed to be self-sufficient from premiums (impossible since it's limited right off the bat to the poorest and the sickest) and is not allowed to negotiate drugs, and is not tied to Medicare to determine rates. Those are all the things that Reps who want something they can call a public option, but which is really not a public option, want. Schumer started on this almost as soon as they started working on healthcare, which is why I'm always so skeptical of his passion for the PO, although he might be smarter than me for a reason I will state below.

I have 2 different ways of looking at this:

Some say (can't believe I'm using that phrase, but it's true) that a gutted public option is designed to pretend that we gave it a shot and it didn't work and that will kill it off for the next twenty years.

A less cynical person could believe that a gutted PO is at least a PO and we have our foot in the door and it can be enlarged and improved over time.

[rudy23]

10. I would be more optimistic on your second point, if I knew we'd have a Dem pres in '13

But what good will a weak public option do if say, Jeb Bush is administering it? That foot in the door is gonna be broken when he slams it shut.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. I agree with your point.

Iwould prefer the right thing from the beginning.

[ddeclue]

3. +1 K&R nt

[Quasimodem]

6. If that's what you think is happening, why wait until the polling booth?

Contact or form a group to go out and protest for what you want.

It is pretty difficult to redefine public option when that public is out by the thousands, on the streets of every major city, carrying signs which proclaim that they want universal single payer government-sponsored health care. And that they will not vote for any politician who compromises.

That’s what Michael Moore has been saying in practically every interview, and I think he is bang on target. It doesn’t matter how much re election money the health insurance lobby throws at the politicians, if a majority of the people who voted them in vow to kick them out should they fail to represent the wishes of their constituents.

If nothing else, a little walking is good for our health. And if we let them give us some of the 'reforms' I have heard being discussed, staying healthy will soon become critical for everybody.

[rudy23]

8. That's a different debate. I'm talking about a strong PO, not single payer.

I don't see anyone defining the public option as single payer.


Looks to me like now, the Dems' answer is to redefine the argument. It's seeming like Bushworld in here during this debate!

[rudy23]

9. But I agree, we need to stay active and vigilant.

I just disagree that the original single payer push is what's obscuring the definition of "public option." It's the Blue Dogs and Obama doing the obscuring.

[Joe Fields]

12. I'm insulted by the whole freaking process. I don't even want this

mangled legislation to pass.

[rudy23]

13. No, it's starting to look worse than what we have now.

Especially if mandates are thrown in there.

[Enthusiast]

14. It is either a strong NATIONAL no-trigger

public option or it is not worth having.

[jgraz]

15. No proposal in Congress has this

At best, a so-called "public option" will only be available to a small fraction (~5%) of the population. It will not cut costs in the least, while the private insurance mandate guarantees a monopoly where they can continue to raise your premiums and cut your benefits as much as they want to.

This is why I'm at the point where I think we should scrap the whole thing and start over.

[Enthusiast]

16. I get the feeling

they want to pass off a public option facsimile that we will find it acceptable. I won't go for it.