will the upcoming healthcare legislation also include a 'public option' on an even playing field?

[dysfunctional press]

personally, i still don't believe that the oligarchs will allow it. but- it will probably be a fairly interesting summer. i just hope that al franken is able to join the discussion before it's over.

[rosesaylavee]

1. I voted yes.

Because I am stubbornly optimistic.

[OmahaBlueDog]

2. There's no reason that it should not be - there is plenty of precedent

In Workers Compensation, for example, many states have a state-backed carrier (such as SAIF in Oregon or Pinnacol in Colorado) which acts all or part of the market-of-last-resort, but also functions as a carrier competing with private carriers in the marketplace. The main difference between workers compensation and medical insurance is that workers compensation is highly regulated at the state level. The rates are filed and approved in advance, and the insurance is mandatory for most employers.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. I voted no

After seeing the lobbying, payouts, and voting irregularities in congress when legislation passed forbidding Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices, then I vote no. Congress will be overwhelmed by money from big pharma, the insurance industry, the hospital industry, AMA. Not calling them "corrupt" exactly, but they can be "influenced" by campaign contributions or the promise of multi-million-dollar do-nothing jobs when they leave congress.

I hope I'm wrong.

[necso]

4. I don't know.

This is a tough issue for many of us, who see single-payer as the only effective path to real healthcare reform. (Which can make it hard to support any plan that isn't single-payer. Yet, without a unified and assertive voice for a good public option, we may not even get that.)

Personally, I don't see single-payer in the US in the foreseeable future. (Others' mileage may vary.)

So I'm willing to go with someone-else's lead on this.

But if all we end up with is more wealthcare crap, there will be much unhappiness.

[necso]

5. As an attempt at humor, let me translate:

I'm trying to be upbeat... for me, that is.


There's only one way out of this terrible, terrible mess: single-payer.

But I think there's exactly zero chance that we'll be able to go in that direction; after all, Congress would have to take us there.

So it's completely hopeless; we're screwed beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yet, just like with the neocons, we have to be vigilant against getting screwed worse than we otherwise might. (Let's choke their rivers with our dead!)

Now, I'm not gettin' involved in this mess, but we need to trot out some scapegoat, some sacrificial lamb ready for the slaughter; someone we can blame and toss crap at when it all goes south.

Any volunteers?

...

Again, this is attempted (misdemeanor) humor... me, I'm way optimistic. Things are looking super-duper rosy.

We're all gonna die.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Sure as hell hope so.

That's the whole ball game, right there.

[eridani]

7. It isn't clear yet

If it doesn't, health care access will be vastly worse and more expensive than it is now.

[Vinca]

8. If there is a public option and it's on an even playing field,

the entire healthcare "reform" will have been a waste. An even playing field means the public option will cost as much as a private option and that's the reason so many are uninsured. I just heard a guy on the Washington Journal who said he just lost coverage when his premiums went up 101% from about $800 to $1600 a month.

[dysfunctional press]

9. i think that you misunderstand what i meant by 'even playing field'...

by 'even playing field', i mean being able to offer the same level of services as the private companies...in that case, the public option(medicare for all) would be able to undercut the private companies, because their administrative costs are much less, and there is no profit being taken out.

[Vinca]

11. Sorry - I missed the point. That would be a good thing.

[Jane in Texas]

10. Not if the public option is going to take all the uninsurable with high medical expenses

I think "the" public option - if there is one - is being set up for failure. That's the only public option we're going to get. One doomed to fail.

Yeah, I'm just a little bit pessimistic. :( I really think that when we see the end result, that's the public plan we're going to have.