Since "public option" supporters will not answer these simple questions, why should we support it?

[lwcon]

1. How many people will have access to, and are expected to be covered by, "the public option"?

2. Will access to and use of it be enough, and under terms attractive-enough, that it will (hard to type this with a straight face) "keep the insurance companies honest"

Citing Jacob Hacker's original paper doesn't cut it, since the plans in Congress are drastically limited... yet are routinely given the credibility in progressive circles as if they weren't.

"Public option" has been promulgated at the expense of momentum for single-payer or nationalized healthcare -- and of any accountability for the White House and Congress's un-transparent process.

[defendandprotect]

1. MEDICARE FOR ALL -- Everyone in, no one out --

[lwcon]

2. Now, don't let the decent be the enemy of the trendy! n/t

[QC]

4. LOL! Excellent phrasing. n/t

[Moochy]

57. Is it an another excuse to play Us vs Them ?

That Other cohort of DU is trendy and therefore wrong for supporting the weak and ineffective watered-down policy of Public Option that we are squabbling over. (on edit: More Cavuto-like subject line... :evilgrin: )

[lwcon]

69. The majority of "progressives" aren't asking the most basic questions about...

"the Public Option."

They are accepting on faith that it's a meaningful policy, in spite of clear indications (including Obama's own 5%-or-less access goal) that it's barely going to be available to anybody, let alone how many other ways Big Insurance will hobble it while the Dems feed more Americans to their for-profit plans.

[Moochy]

76. we agree

I am ambivalent about defending such a symbolic pittance.

[defendandprotect]

81. As far as I can see, many here will beg for crumbs and celebrate the crumb-giver!!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. +1000000! nt

[peace13]

3. First off I think everyone posting about the 'public option' ...

should state what kind of health insurance they have. I have a small business and we are unable to be part of a large group insurance plan. Three people and the policy is $2500.00 a month. We pay double Social Security and double Medicare. If one of us gets sick and actually uses our health insurance we will lose our insurance. We are the people supporting the public option. People who pay and pay and pay and get no security for their money. Meanwhile folks with Medicare and federal government insurance sit back and revel in the luxury of knowing that they will not lose coverage. Public Option is a necessity out here. People are willing to pay for it. Why do those who are being robbed have to justify every cost item to folks who are already living off of socialized medicine. The answer to your question. Everybody should have access to the public option. Number two, there is no keeping the insurance companies honest. None. Nada!!

[lwcon]

5. The trick with the "public option" is that nowhere near *everybody* will have access

People on the "public option" bandwagon don't know and/or don't care that it's a bait-and-switch, and that the vast majority of Americans would be ineligible for any "public option" plan considered by Congress.

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. +10,000 n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. Obama made it very clear, when he was "for" the PO, that only those currently uninsured would

be eligible. So anyone who is currently insured, with high deductibles, high co-pays, high premiums and substandard benefits would be locked out.

[lwcon]

9. Yet so many of us are dutifully salivating over a "PO" as if it's something meaningful

They really have us coming and going. Rooting for meaningless policy, and accepting worse policy. Kinda depressing, really.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. It really is sad. MSM never discusses what are in the bills and the POLITICIANS (corp whores)

sure won't come on to network tv (most watched news) and say. Most of the people are in the dark about it.

BTW... I've been uninsured for years and want all the current bills, including the House bill to just die until they come up with a 2 page bill that declares Medicare for all and that it starts within 6 months of signing... a woman can dream. can't she?

[peace13]

13. Mind if I ask who your insurance is with?

I can't possibly get more depressed than I am with my carrier. If the simple discussion about PO depresses you then I want what you have!

[lwcon]

15. I'm in an HMO

The coverage is pretty poor. Is there a litmus test for what kind of coverage I should have before I can criticize a lousy and deceptive plan that keeps the inmates in charge of the asylum?

The discussion on "PO" is simple in the not-very-bright sense. Everyone's cheerleading it without having an answer to the most fundamental questions like who will be eligible for it. That's what's depressing, and the way it's sucking oxygen away from talk of real solutions.

[Fire1]

28. How do you know 'real solutions' aren't there, if you don't

know what's in it?!

[lwcon]

30. I know Obama, when he did sorta support it, said it would be for less than 5% of Americans

David Swanson calculated it at less than 2%.

Not much of an "option" if the vast majority of people are ineligible. And that's before considering how many other ways it will be hobbled to protect the interests of Big Insurance.

See PNHP for more on the "public option" bait and switch.

[shimmergal]

12. Sooner or later, a large proportion

of people become uninsured. There'll be even more as outrageous julmps in premiums force more small employers to drop their coverage.

All we need to do to "fix" the "locked out" is to include a grandfather clause, that once you've had the public option you can keep it.

[lwcon]

18. How about we solve the real problem, instead?

Taking the profit out of health insurance like nearly every civilized country has.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. i don't quite understand this

"All we need to do to "fix" the "locked out" is to include a grandfather clause, that once you've had the public option you can keep it."

The people you mentioned wouldn't have had the public option to keep.

BTW.... I believe that not all who qualify for a proposed public option would get it. I just recalled Obama changing the number to about only 42 million would get it ...out of the 50 million uninsured..they theoretically capped the program.

IMHO, the only solution for this fine mess we're in is single payer/medicare for all. All else is going to be manipulated crap.

[lwcon]

24. Obama claimed fewer than 5% of Americans would get the "PO"

Last time he vaguely supported it.

Of course, he also said this once upon a time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

48. Oh yeah. This is when he says he's a proponent of single payer/universal health care but

first we have to take back the WH and then the Senate.

:rofl:

[CTyankee]

33. If politicians are so crazy about small businesses, as they say they are, then

your predicament should be front and center in the debate. It is unspeakable that you should have to do this. I hope you have spoken to your congressperson about your situation. It should be widely publicized and legislation should be aimed to help you cover your employees...

[DisgustedInMN]

10. Ahhh ...I see...

.. now that We the People are pushing our bought and paid for Senators to do the right thing....



... the meme changes to "if it ain't perfect to MY specs, it's bad."



Yeah, right.


Stuffit, corporatists.

[lwcon]

14. So, what are the specs of the "PO"?

If you can't answer even the most basic questions -- like how many people it will cover -- how can you describe it as "the right thing"?

I get that it's trendy in your tribe to ascribe meaning to the "public option," but where's the beef?

[DisgustedInMN]

20. I don't live in..

.. a "tribe," pal. Take your smarmy blather and your strawman horseshit and do something appropriate with 'em.

[lwcon]

21. Go re-read your previous comment

How is this not a straw man:

"if it ain't perfect to MY specs, it's bad."

[lwcon]

22. And WTF is up with "Stuffit, corporatists"?

Arguing for single-payer or socialized medicine -- instead of a "public option" whose proponents won't answer the most basic questions about (like how many people are eligible for it) -- is "corporatist"? Say what?

[Froward69]

16. UNrec and I will tell you why

I own a small business and I cannot afford Health Insurance. NOT in addition to Business liability, vehicle, structure, Boiler, wind, Flood and Mortgage Insurance anyway. I am one of those who does not qualify for Individual Health Insurance because I am self employed w/ a preexisting condition. Oh I could buy an Insurance Policy that still would not cover me should I have a work related injury. as to be covered at work the Insurance premium would be 4 times the amount than just Individual Insurance... that already is three times the amount of an Individual Policy if I were with out previous medical problems.

I would camp out in line, (like I used to do for Concert tickets as a teenager) to sign up for the public Option.

1)I seriously do not know how many more would be covered.

2)real competition simply does not exist in the Health insurance market. the Public Option would be a good first step.

after all as things are these days once you turn 65 the private insurance automatically signs you up for medicare and bills medicare accordingly. like in the case of my father the insurance company billed medicare twice sometimes three times for the same procedure.

the Insurance company's want your premium but do not want your bill. and thus shift the cost on to you or to medicare/medicaid.

[lwcon]

17. Will you be eligible for the "PO"? Would it be on reasonable terms?

We're not supposed to ask those questions because "PO" is a magic-pony feelgood policy no matter how badly it gets whittled down into meaninglessness.

[Froward69]

23. where it is now

I really do not know, I imagine I would be eligible.
the actual cost is still yet to be determined. actually the Public Option is not simply a "feel good" policy. it is actually a good first step in reigning in the abuses of the Insurance cartels.

[lwcon]

25. How do you know it's a good first step?

The promise of it is being used to sell expansion of for-profit health care.

The whole "reform" process stinks to high heaven, and adding the bragging rights for some tiny, limited, vaguely defined "public option" just makes the bad medicine go down easier.

"I imagine" is too much a part of progressive support for this trojan pony.

[Froward69]

26. In this case a "trojan pony" is a good thing.

as if it leads to health care for all, then all the better.

the health of society should be the goal here. not just selling more insurance.

After all it is the insurance company that takes profit out of your sickness/misery. Insurance is the middleman with a death panel determining
1) what procedure it will pay for
2) just how many of your generations will be saddled with your debt.
3) weather or not you deserve to be covered.
4) dropping you should your survival become to expensive.

[lwcon]

27. Why would you say that? It's a might big "if"!

We spent a year on a so-called debate about HCR. Obama promised an open and transparent process. Instead he made a secret deal with Big Pharma, his own family doctor was forbidden to promote single-payer at his "town halls," doctors and nurses and everyday citizens had to get arrested for single payer to be so much as mentioned in Baucus's hearings, and progressives have distracted themselves silly with a wholly undefined and incredibly shrinking "public option."

As a result, the plans of record are to increase the size and influence of Big Insurance. Even Obama's stated goal is a FAIL: to lower the rate of increase of our health insurance. Lower the rate of increase? We pay two-to-three times what other countries pay... and we get less coverage and worse outcomes.

The "public option" plans discussed in Congress are tiny and restricted to the point of irrelevance. Lefty fixation on this fake goal is a deadly distraction from the goal of shutting down the corporate death panels.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

50. "trojan pony"? Clinton said NAFTA wasn't all that great but we'd fix it later down the road!

And that has happened when?

:rofl:

[Moochy]

54. In the Alternate Universe where DLC candidates Do what they Promise

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. Oh silly me! I forgot about the Alternate Universe!

:rofl:

[lwcon]

59. Obama is 11-dimensionally better

He simultaneously blasted NAFTA and promised Canada he wouldn't touch it: Schrödinger's Trojan Pony!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

65. lwcon, I tend to have very good recall, but there are so many

adverse things that Obama has "accomplished", I keep forgetting all of them. Thank you for reminding me about NAFTA.

[uncle ray]

29. it's a step we have to take to get to single payer.

there is no way we are going directly to single payer from our current system. it's either going to happen incrementally or never.

[lwcon]

31. Why?

How does bad or weak policy facilitate strong policy?

Are the Dems likely to gain seats in November? Are they suddenly turning bolder and more progressive?

[uncle ray]

55. why?

because single payer is not going to happen right now. as much as i want it, we have a long way to go to break the corporate hold on our health care. when our influence is greater than theirs, then it will happen, right now not a chance in hell.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

58. That will never happen as we let our politicians be bought and paid for by corp health ins and big

pharma. And those who haven't been on those teats are being paid off for their votes with pork. We first need election reform. Throw all of the for-profit lobbyists out on their collective corporate asses and then vote in single payer. The Senate and House bills are going to absolutely kill any middle class that we have left, and allow those corporations to continue eating at our bones.

[lwcon]

60. When are you expecting a better chance for progressive reform?

Good policy is good politics. The Dems aren't practicing good policy, and it's breathing new life into the moribund Republican Party.

[lwcon]

61. Why?

The Dems are tanking because their incremental approach is a pathetic response to our real problems.

Enough kabuki and "centrism." How about some leadership and some real reform?

[lwcon]

32. Thanks to all for the rec's

The unrecs are out in force, too. But, strangely, no answers at all about how many people the Blessed "Public Option" will cover.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. I don't care if you support it or not

I don't intimidate or humiliate those who disagree with me. I support the public option and will not support legislation that does not include it. It's that simple. My vote is my vote and your vote is your vote. That is what is so precious about our right to vote. We have the right to vote however we like without the threat of intimidation. However, I do think that single payer would be better and frankly to be honest I may not support any of the healthcare reforms because I know none of them will include single payer.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. If the public option were

1. Open to all legal residents of the U.S. without exception

2. Funded with income-based premiums that were REALISTIC

3. Connected to Bernie Sanders' expansion of public clinics

4. Didn't have any deductibles but had sliding-scale copays, then it would be terrific.

If it were open only to people who weren't already enrolled in private insurance and cost as much as private insurance, then it would be a waste of time and money.

[lwcon]

37. And how many progressives are asking questions like this?

For a while, there was the vague "strong" and "robust" prefix, but now any "public option," regardless of what it is, is being treated as the holy grail.

We're just about as gullible a lot as the teabag crowd.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. I think so many people are in such desperate circumstances that they ATTRIBUTE

qualities to the health care bills that simply aren't there.

[slipslidingaway]

42. Bingo! n/t

[lwcon]

43. There's that, for sure

But many people aren't acting out of desperation, they're acting out of trust for sell-out and misled authority figures.

The big bloggers and advocacy groups and msnbc commentators can't be wrong, can they?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. Not only desperate... there are many who trust their representatives to do the right

thing by them. If the MSM was doing its job and informing the people to what is really in this bill and how it will Not affect them except for taking more money from their pockets, we might have a real revolution at the polls (as long as the votes aren't being stolen by voting machines).

[slipslidingaway]

36. knr - thanks for asking the questions :) n/t

[thotzRthingz]

38. not sure what CONGRESS plans to have in the final (if any) HCR bill... but

the recent Research2000 poll in Nevada... showed that REID's constituents (mid-50s percentile w/DEMS, and more than 60% with Independents added in) favored a PUBLIC OPTION, open to everyone w/no restrictions, to be passed using reconciliation. I suspect the same is true across other states as well.

As a registered-Independent in VA, that is what I favor as well (since SINGLE-PAYER wasn't ever seriously discussed)... and IMO: such a PUBLIC OPTION would likely eventually MORPH into SINGLE-PAYER.

The asshole greed-mongering FOR-PROFITS (especially insurance companies who contribute absolutely NOTHING to anyone HEALTH CARE, while pocketing BILLION$ in profits) need to get the fuck out of the United States' health care arena... go make your BILLION$ IN PROFITS elsewhere (I hear that CHINA and INDIA have many hundreds of millions of people on whom you can prey)!

[lwcon]

40. How far will the "public option," if one, diverge from...

"a PUBLIC OPTION, open to everyone w/no restrictions"

...and still get unconditional love from most progressives?

I'd say, if it's open to maybe three people, it will still be hailed as a brilliant triumph and a great starting point. Since no one seems to care how many people will get it, why don't the Dems pass it that way? The Republicans will still be able to decry it as "socialism," and the Dems will brag about their bold success. Everybody wins!

[slipslidingaway]

41. Keep Your Eye on the Actuarial Value in Health Reform

http://theccfblog.org/2009/08/keep-your-eye-on-the-actuarial-value-in-health-reform.html

"...So, let's start with the basics. The actuarial value of a health plan is the share of health care costs that a plan would cover if an average population were enrolled in it. For example, a plan with an actuarial value of 70%, would cover 70% of the health care expenses of an average population, and 30% would be picked up by individuals. If you are enrolled in a health plan with an actuarial value of 70%, it does not mean that you, personally, only will have to pay for 30% of your health care costs. If you happen to use lots of medical care, you could end up having to pick up a much higher share of your costs, and if you are lucky, you could end up paying for a much smaller share.


...In the health reform debate, actuarial value is being used as an objective way to put a value on how good the coverage is that will be offered through "Exchange" plans. For those of use who follow health coverage for children and families, it will be critical to keep our eye on the minimum actuarial value established by various proposals because it will help determine whether the coverage offered as a result of reform is affordable and works for families.

The current House bill states that health plans must have an actuarial value of at least 70%, which means the insurance covers an estimated 70% of health-care expenses for an average population. The higher the actuarial value, the more generous the benefit package and less onerous the cost-sharing while a lower actuarial value, would indicate a less generous benefit package and higher cost-sharing. It isn't clear yet where the Senate will set the minimum, but estimates range from 65% to 76%. These are both less generous than the typical employer-sponsored preferred-provider plan that the Congressional Research Service estimates to be about 80% to 84%. It is also less robust than the standard PPO plan offered to federal employees according to CRS. (It is important to note that traditional Medicaid for children has an actuarial value of 100% and close to half of states use the Medicaid benefit package in their CHIP programs as well.)

Why should we care about what appears to be such an obscure number? The actuarial value provides a quantitative way to make sure plans meet a minimum value. It takes into account elements of a health plan such as deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, out-of-pocket limits, and benefit limits. If policymakers lower the minimum actuarial value, we know families will either receive reduced benefits or face higher costs..."

[slipslidingaway]

44. The actuarial squeeze on low and middle income families

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/27/the-actuarial-squeeze-on-low-and-middle-income-families/

"...The Health Affairs article by Jon Gabel and his colleagues shows that plans with an 80% actuarial value are not providing adequate financial protection to individuals with modest incomes who need health care. Having a plan with an 80% actuarial value can place you in the ranks of the underinsured.

Basic coverage under the proposals before Congress would provide an actuarial value of 65% or 70%. That means that the patients would be responsible for the remaining 30% or 35% of health care costs, although the proposals would limit the total amount for which the patients are responsible under the plans. Patients also would be responsible for out-of-network services and for services and products not covered by their plans.

If there is a cap on out-of-pocket spending, then why should the precise actuarial value make difference? Simply, the lower the actuarial value, the greater the likelihood that the patient will have to spend the full amount up to the cap. Thus more individuals will be negatively impacted. Also, the amount of the cap makes a very big difference. The proposed caps on out-of-pocket spending, when added to the patient’s share of the premium, create a financial hardship for most low and middle income individuals and families..."

[kenny blankenship]

45. Underinsured enrollees mean PURE PROFIT to the insurance mafia, soaking up the subsidy billions

The checks come to the insurance racketeers straight from the Govt. large and regular, but the marks will strongly deterred from using their "coverage". Which leaves all that gravy lying around for the middleman to soak up... State enforced capitalism, so much easier than old fashioned private enterprise. If only Benito was still around to see it all come true!

[slipslidingaway]

51. Yes, continually shaking my head that the Democrats are supporting...

another transfer of money from the working class to the large corporations.

:(

[SlingBlade]

46. Rham ?

[lwcon]

53. Wha? n/t

[Moochy]

47. Its not good enough so therefore lets toss it

and get no cost controls! Typically disingenuous position of someone desperately selling a bill of tainted merchandise.

[lwcon]

52. Please explain n/t

[WillyT]

62. I'd Rather Have Single Payer Too, But...

I don't think there's any way it can be done all at once.

The Public Option is the first step.

Take Social Security as an example:

<snip>

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

Some have suggested that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Southern Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act’s creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Southern congressmen supported Social Security as a means to bring needed relief to areas in the South that were especially hurt by the Great Depression but wished to avoid legislation which might interfere with the racial status quo in the South. The solution to this dilemma was to pass a bill that both included exclusions and granted authority to the states rather than the national government (such as the states' power in Aid to Dependent Children). Others have argued that exclusions of job categories such as agriculture were frequently left out of new social security systems worldwide because of the administrative difficulties in covering these workers.<16>

Social Security reinforced traditional views of family life.<17> Women generally qualified for insurance only through their husband or their children.<17> Mothers’ pensions (Title IV) based entitlements on the presumption that mothers would be unemployed.<17>

Historical discrimination in the system can also be seen with regard to Aid to Dependent Children. Since this money was allocated to the states to distribute, some localities assessed black families as needing less money than white families. These low grant levels made it impossible for African American mothers to not work: one requirement of the program.<18> Some states also excluded children born out of wedlock, an exclusion which affected African American women more than white women.<19> One study determined that 14.4% of eligible white individuals received funding, but only 1.5% of eligible black individuals received these benefits.<16>

<snip>

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

Eventually, it became pretty much universal.

:shrug:

[lwcon]

63. Medicare immediately took insurers out of the biz of...

providing basic insurance to seniors. For that age bracket, it was everybody in, nobody out.

Unless the model of discriminating against, say women and minorities, seems like a more appropriate paradigm.

Notice that over 60 messages in, not one proponent of "public option" can or will answer how many people will be covered. They don't answer, because they're buying a placebo and don't want to look at the ingredients.

[WillyT]

64. So... You're For The Seante Plan ???

Look, you're right, nobody knows how many people the PO will cover.

That's because nobody knows if it will even be considered. Hell, we don't know excatly WHAT these idiots are going to try and foist on us.

But if you think they're gonna go Single Payer this year... I'll eat my laptop!

:shrug:

I LIKE the fact that we are pushing them toward the right direction. But I'm afraid this is gonna be a marathon, and not a sprint.

[lwcon]

68. No, I don't think they're going to do single-payer this year

I think they're going to continue to screw the American public on behalf of their corporate overlords.

I just don't think we should be cheerleading it, nor should we be fooled by the "public option" kabuki. It's not a real plan, it's just a pacifier. And it's working -- progressives have convinced themselves it's a proper goal instead of the bait-and-switch that it is.

[Festivito]

66. 1. Everyone, 2. Yes. Now you can support it.

1. As a public option, it should be an option to everyone, everyone in the public sphere. Don't have or can't get insurance from a private company, no problem, here's a public option.

2. If we had a way to keep people honest we wouldn't need laws or even a Constitution. That said, yes, a public option will keep the insurance companies honest. Honest in that they will have to compete without denying people life and liberty in order continue making profits.

[lwcon]

67. Is there a "public option" on the table that is available to everyone?

Doesn't sound like any proposal that's been anywhere near Congress.

[Festivito]

73. The hacks are hacking and they're hoping to wait us out.

And, use whatever else protects their "way of life" family jobs and profits.

Will a public option NECESSARILY cover everyone? Not if it's written to not cover everyone. Since the OP title was not clear on whether it speaks of a ROBUST public option, or an existing one, I responded as I did.

A bad public option is both unacceptable and better than no public option.

[lwcon]

74. There is no "robust" public option under consideration in Congress

"Robust" and "strong" have been thrown in front of it at whim, which just perpetuates the fantasy that a/the "PO" plan will be good.

Virtually no progressive energy has been spent on defining or sticking to a definition of what would make the "PO" strong. I'll be shocked, shocked to find out that it isn't.

[Festivito]

75. They're waiting us out.

They can wait for decades and already have waited that long.

But, they'll leave it out altogether before they come around again to give a good PO. Let's be careful not to say we're against POs in general. I'm just against a bad PO that isn't really a PO.

People will have to die to bring us to that point.

[lwcon]

82. What's on tap is surely a bad "PO"

Even when he was for it, the President said it would cover less than 5% of Americans.

It's just a fantasy to suggest that a, by your definition, a good "PO" is under consideration.

People are already dying because of our for-profit model, and ObamaCare squanders an opportunity to end it and is giving HCR and liberals a bad name (See "Brown, Scott. Election of.").

[rucky]

70. 36 Million Americans.

It's the house version of the bill that passed last October. We're not reinventing the wheel, here.

[lwcon]

72. You expect the Dems will enact a plan that lets north of 10% of Americans

Get access to a "public option"?

Will it be at terms notably better than one can get from commercial insurance? Or will it just rationalize forcing other, healthier and therefore more profitable, Americans to by for-profit insurance?

If it were a good plan, what would their corporate overlords think?

[rucky]

84. 17%

According to the CBO report, 55% of them will receive subsidies and see significant decrease in their premiums than if they were in an individual plan under the current system. The rest will see an increase of about 10%. In all cases, coverage is about 70% of costs (right now the current average is 60%)

[Faryn Balyncd]

71. What are the DETAILS of the "Public Option" that Diane Feinstein now has signed on to?

[slipslidingaway]

80. That is the problem, nobody knows the details. n/t

[walldude]

77. The public option doesn't exist yet how can anyone answer a question

that has no answer? If you want to know the best way to implement a public option that's easy. Medicare buy in. You want insurance you pay your premiums to medicare. The rate you pay is according to what you earn, with higher income families earners paying slightly higher premiums to subsidize costs for lower income families.

The system is already in place. It will take a bit of time to implement but there is no downside to it. It's deficit neutral, covers anyone who needs it and the nut cases are allowed to keep their crappy for profit insurance.

[maryf]

78. K&R

Kip Sullivan writes a lot on this at pnhp.org and other places, thanks for paying attention and not being fooled! :)

[Edweird]

79. How 'bout you do your own research and draw your own conclusions?

The fact that you have unanswered questions is your problem.

[lwcon]

83. The fact that nearly every "progressive" is falling for a scam is all of our problems n/t

.

[maryf]

85. Kick for logic!