For those who would rather have no bill than an "opt-out" public option

[BzaDem]

would you have also been opposed to Social Security at the time it was enacted? After all, Social Security (when it was enacted) excluded FAR more people than an opt-out public option ever would.

[DireStrike]

1. Did the original social security bill also have an ENORMOUS handout to entrenched corporations?

Corporations that have proven time and again that they'll abuse their power to gain more? Corporations that, let's face it, should not exist in their current form.

[BzaDem]

3. With your definition, yes.

The bill does not hand out money to corporations. The bill gives money to people, who will then give it to corporations in exchange for health insurance.

In that case, so did Social Security. It gave money to seniors, who then gave the money to corporations (for food/housing/etc). So the answer to your question is yes.

[Oregone]

6. Disagree

"The bill does not hand out money to corporations. The bill gives money to people, who will then give it to corporations in exchange for health insurance."

No, that is an ass-backwards way to look at it. If it was giving money to people, they could buy an old run down Camero with it. No, it mandates the purchase, and penalizes those that fail to meet it.

Might as well cut a check straight to the corp, since they are forcing it, via legislation, to go there anyway.

[DireStrike]

23. +1. Also, SOME of the mandated coverage will be subsidized.

Not all of it, by any means.

And when inflation creeps upwards, do you really think the subsidies will keep pace? Name one subsidy that has ever completely kept pace with inflation, and not just been kicked down the road when a tough budget comes up.

[eridani]

13. No fucking way will money be given to people. The subsidies go directly to insurance companies n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Health care scares a lot of politicians -- AND their constituents

The need for reform has been decades in the making.

After something gets passed, everyone will say, "Thank God that's over!"

If a bait and switch, no-teeth-in-it bill gets passed, we're going to have to live -- and die -- with it for a long time.

[Oregone]

4. Not sure. Did SS mandate the excluded buy some corrupt and insufficient private service?

[rpannier]

5. Different eras

The way things are done now is totally different.
If we don't get it now, it will be almost impossible to get it in the next 5-8 years
The economic clout of the insurance industry is far too strong.
Right now we're being told we have to wait until the economy gets better
Once it gets better they'll say it would derail the recovery.

Social Security (your example) was available in only a few countries (Germany for example -- enacted by Bismarck) so it was a new idea to the public.
It didn't seriously intrude on the profit margins of any major corporation since there was not a retirement pension industry, like there is a health care industry

[Mojambo]

7. I've been pretty picky about what I'd accept

But I could probably live with the opt out.

However I will say that I don't really think SS is a terribly good comparison to health care.

When SS was introduced you didn't have a pre-existing industry whose wealth and power were DIRECTLY impacted by the introduction of SS.

Sure there were rich pricks who were against it. Still are, but there wasn't a juggernaut of an industry like the health insurance racket that was profiting on the status quo directly.

[Oregone]

8. "But I could probably live with the opt out."

Yes, but those mandated without the option of fair insurance wouldn't be ok. Isn't government supposed to protect even the interest of those minority groups, instead of craft legislation that possibly creates them and leaves people in the cold to no fault of their own?

[Mojambo]

10. I agree with you.

I don't want the opt out.

It's quite inadequate. It's also the best we're getting. Given the failure of leadership, we're pretty lucky to get even that.

[ddeclue]

9. FAIL! How well would a "state by state option" on Civil Rights and Voting Rights have gone

:argh:

This is a cheap trick to fool the libs into shutting up - nobody but New Englanders will get a public option if this fake state by state crap passes.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Agreed!

[anonymous171]

18. Opt-out =/= state by state. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. If individual states are able to opt out, it will go against one of capitalism's most

fundamental tenets: the financial benefits of economies of scale.

[dhpgetsit]

14. If health care reform passes with an "Opt Out Clause"

I don't think any states would opt out. It would leave them at a disadvantage. It would be like turning down Economic Stimulus money.

[ddeclue]

15. You are handicapped by your need to apply logic - Republican legislatures are not so encumbered.

[Oregone]

16. "I don't think any states would opt out"

Then why would that motivate politicians to be more likely to vote for something, who are not entirely stupid.

It would be a moot concession if what you say is true, and therefore, unneeded

[dhpgetsit]

20. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

I imagine it would be up to the state Governor and Legislature whether or not to "opt out". So a US Senator might be more likely to vote for the bill knowing that he could take some political cover behind state officials.

[Incitatus]

17. Alaska?

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Arguements all over the map

First, we have to have universal mandated purchase, because only by including every American can we make it affordable to all. Now, it is suddenly just fine to allow millions at a time to refuse that mandated purchase. So it would be unthinkable to allow one person to opt out, but wonderful to let entire States opt out?
The 'any bill' people will argue 'any point' that works, changing at the drop of a hat. We must have everybody, or we don't need entire regions, or something, what day is it, what are we saying today? Any bill is victory! Bad is good, mediocre is the best America can do! Support crap or support nothing!

[notesdev]

21. I oppose Social Security now

It's an obvious fraud. There is no possible way in hell that there will be anything left by the time my turn comes; they are stealing from me and lying to my face while they do it.

The math doesn't lie. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.


However... when it was introduced, it was VOLUNTARY, no more than 1% of your income, and the cards had clearly printed on them that the Social Security number was not to be used for any other purpose. Nowadays it's a universal tracking number used to tie together everything about you and deliver that information to big corporations who use it for their own purposes, which do not benefit you.

When SS goes below zero in net revenue in the next couple of years, where's the money going to come from?

[eridani]

22. Remove the income cap, or at least raise it n/t