Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:13 PM Nov 2013

Sorry I've just got to say it.....A Public Option would have avoided most of this crap

I'm in favor of single-payer universal coverage. A basic coverage plan based on an affordable percentage of income for everyone.

That's what most of the civilized world does now.

Not perfect, but a huge improvement over allowing the health care system to be submerged in the shark tank of private-insurance pirates we have now.

But since that was not even considered, the "public option," seemed to be the best alternativ e available. Give younger people the option to buy into Medicare coverage, while allowing the private insurance market to also function.

That would have given people the choice. It would have also set a public-insurance benchmark that the private insurers would have to compete with -- which would hopefully cause them to act somewhat more reasonably in order to keep customers.

But noooo. Instead we got stuck with this beast that combines the worst of all worlds. It has the "mandatory" coverage that conservatives hate, while continuing to allow the "markets" to hold us hostage.

As a nation we collectively screwed the pooch on this one. We refused to implement a very modest compromise step in the right direction by simply opening up the option of public social insurance while also allowing "the market" to continue to operate for those who want that.

Because of this, in my opinion, the loony left has every right to say "We told you so."



192 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sorry I've just got to say it.....A Public Option would have avoided most of this crap (Original Post) Armstead Nov 2013 OP
Don't apologize. Brigid Nov 2013 #1
I supported (and still support) the public option... Skinner Nov 2013 #2
Would not have been perfect -- but would have avoided a lot of the present problems Armstead Nov 2013 #6
+1. A cheaper better alternative would have been a huge win! grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #157
+1 that is one issue that has nothing to do with this. treestar Nov 2013 #10
It has everything tpo do with this Armstead Nov 2013 #18
If you lie down with Blue Dogs ... WowSeriously Nov 2013 #103
the public option would have been an insurance policy treestar Nov 2013 #108
insurance companies websites WyLoochka Nov 2013 #171
no the big problem is the cost questionseverything Nov 2013 #47
A progressive sliding scale would make a big difference Armstead Nov 2013 #53
A progressive sliding scale is why we needed single payer instead of mandates DJ13 Nov 2013 #83
public option could have a sliding scale questionseverything Nov 2013 #136
Not Keeping existing plans would not have been a problem. MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #78
Even if there were a public option, the website still would not work. <- in it's present form, such jtuck004 Nov 2013 #85
Not true WyLoochka Nov 2013 #172
But they are already signing up for Medicare, without this so-called site. So it would jtuck004 Nov 2013 #186
Medicare is an existing program...and has been working now for 50 years. zeemike Nov 2013 #92
+1.. They could have lowered the eligibility age a little bit each year SomethingFishy Nov 2013 #106
Yes but its not cheap Sgent Nov 2013 #149
Where do you get those figures? zeemike Nov 2013 #150
Ok subsidies was the wrong word Sgent Nov 2013 #151
OK fully realized cost. zeemike Nov 2013 #170
I have to disagree. The public plan would provide a cheaper/better plan, nullifying the logic in the grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #156
and very importantly..... Sheepshank Nov 2013 #182
Of course it would have. gcomeau Nov 2013 #3
It's part of the job of principled politicians to convince them otherwise Armstead Nov 2013 #19
I have yet to hear sharp_stick Nov 2013 #4
I said we as a nation collectively screwed up Armstead Nov 2013 #7
There hasn't been a reasonable sharp_stick Nov 2013 #45
True, but there are many of them Armstead Nov 2013 #60
Nor, it has to be said... DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #161
it had passed the house questionseverything Nov 2013 #137
Simply by persuading 1 senator with an ambassadorship, cabinet position or grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #158
EXACTLY!!! bvar22 Nov 2013 #183
No it wouldn't brooklynite Nov 2013 #5
Maybe but.... Armstead Nov 2013 #12
How does adding a Public Option to Medicare address matters? brooklynite Nov 2013 #20
An Option is an improvement over the private insurance monopoly.... Armstead Nov 2013 #26
But that's not what your OP discussed... brooklynite Nov 2013 #42
Would not have been perfect....But a lot more managable than this horrorshlow Armstead Nov 2013 #43
But that was never the plan SpartanDem Nov 2013 #109
And there were enough votes in Congres for the public option Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #8
I said "As a nation we collectively screwed the pooch." Armstead Nov 2013 #13
And you know that how? Evidence? cali Nov 2013 #14
freakin wow cali!!! Are you sseriously asking this question!? uponit7771 Nov 2013 #29
It didn't even make it out of the finance committee: Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #32
Back at the time, had we an outstandingly progressive President who truedelphi Nov 2013 #123
I blame Obama for letting blue dogs write the bill. Dawgs Nov 2013 #40
Lieberman was never going to vote for a PO. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #115
Irrelevant to my point. Also, we'll never know what would have happened. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #131
Well, yea get the red out Nov 2013 #9
True, but we should have pushed harder to counter the propaganda Armstead Nov 2013 #16
I'm not zeemike Nov 2013 #97
Why has no Democrat stepped forward to take advantage of the hysteria with a TwilightGardener Nov 2013 #11
Some did but they got ignored or squashed by the "centrist" Democratic establishment Armstead Nov 2013 #15
Now is the time, then. Publicize it out the wazoo, and get Reid to allow consideration. TwilightGardener Nov 2013 #17
I agree...But the horse is out of the barn....at least for a while. Armstead Nov 2013 #22
Not at all...the rollout still would have had huge bugs in it Rex Nov 2013 #21
Not necessarily if it had been phased into gthe present Medicare system Armstead Nov 2013 #23
True if they would have gone that route, but they did not. Rex Nov 2013 #25
I'd rather not be having this conversation....I'd much rather... Armstead Nov 2013 #31
I hear that, Nixon and Agnew should have never been allowed Rex Nov 2013 #52
Well, duh. Orsino Nov 2013 #24
No, ... no it wouldn't uponit7771 Nov 2013 #27
Complain to Joe Lieberman... PoliticAverse Nov 2013 #28
It was a failure of the entire political syatem as it is now rigged Armstead Nov 2013 #33
That would include Harry Reid. tblue Nov 2013 #79
and Max Baucus who had single payer advocates arrested at a hearing solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #90
tell me how it would have passed in congress? lostincalifornia Nov 2013 #30
The same way that peace and harmony would avoid most wars. randome Nov 2013 #34
So we should never have ideals or goals? Armstead Nov 2013 #39
No, not at all. You're right, cynicism is our worst enemy. randome Nov 2013 #48
Maybe not single payer...But the Public Option was a compromise on that Armstead Nov 2013 #58
Lieberman and the blue dogs said no at the time. A Medicare for those 55 and above was thrown down lostincalifornia Nov 2013 #59
we had plenty of votes to go to reconciliation in the senate questionseverything Nov 2013 #138
The reality was it wasn't going to happen because there were not enough progressives. Until there lostincalifornia Nov 2013 #139
we had more than 50 senators on record supporting it questionseverything Nov 2013 #142
a Pubic Option Bill was passed in the house Rilgin Nov 2013 #77
Yes I remembr the frustration over that Armstead Nov 2013 #93
Great post. go west young man Nov 2013 #152
Sorry. go west young man Nov 2013 #153
No Need for apology Rilgin Nov 2013 #191
If more Democrats had shown backbone... Armstead Nov 2013 #37
Exactly. And one of the big reasons they gave for not pursuing it was it would behard to set up. jwirr Nov 2013 #35
Shouldn't be hard to set up, there are many excellent working systems throught the world NorthCarolina Nov 2013 #140
Don't be sorry. Iggo Nov 2013 #36
Was a figure of speech... Armstead Nov 2013 #38
Welll yeah, that. Iggo Nov 2013 #50
No s#!t. Cleita Nov 2013 #41
That's too straightforward Armstead Nov 2013 #46
Absolutely libodem Nov 2013 #44
How would a public option stop insurers from canceling policies? ProSense Nov 2013 #49
It might not. But.... Armstead Nov 2013 #54
Oh you can say it, but does that help us in the next election? Savannahmann Nov 2013 #51
I'm not talking about the partisan political frame Armstead Nov 2013 #56
But there is no way to accomplish anything without partisan politics. Savannahmann Nov 2013 #86
True but they have to be hand-in-hand Armstead Nov 2013 #94
Public Option wouldn't have prevented web site problems... or cancelled policies scheming daemons Nov 2013 #55
To repeat from my original post... Armstead Nov 2013 #57
It would have had it's own "disasters" included with its implementation. cbdo2007 Nov 2013 #69
Unless the public option was Medicare. zeemike Nov 2013 #104
Must've missed the roll-out of Medicare part D jeff47 Nov 2013 #116
Not the same thing zeemike Nov 2013 #118
There would be something that goes wrong. jeff47 Nov 2013 #119
Well I never went on line for Medicare... zeemike Nov 2013 #120
Actually, you did choose a plan. jeff47 Nov 2013 #122
Yes but that system is already there and working. zeemike Nov 2013 #125
Not always. jeff47 Nov 2013 #126
Well of course you are right. zeemike Nov 2013 #129
I agree. Tell Joe Lieberman. jazzimov Nov 2013 #61
Everyone blocked it -- each in our own way Armstead Nov 2013 #64
Yup ... trying to put a square peg into a round hole. 1000words Nov 2013 #62
+1000 Cleita Nov 2013 #68
Free healthcare for all paid for by 90% tax rate on those with incomes above $750,000 Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #63
A public option is a lot more moderate than that, and you know it Armstead Nov 2013 #65
no. I accurately said neither would have passed the senate. which is the point. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #66
Yes. I acknowledge that in terms of the make of Congress at that time...and its worse now Armstead Nov 2013 #71
hey, I'm agreeing. Need a whole lot more education of the public to get critical mass Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #72
Okay I agree with that Armstead Nov 2013 #76
Too many in Congress and the WH get big $$ from the insurance companies to support this...nt Clear Blue Sky Nov 2013 #67
So would a magic wand, if we'd had one that could have given pnwmom Nov 2013 #70
No...If we allowed a situation where one man can hold off systemic reform... Armstead Nov 2013 #74
33% of CT Democrats chose Lieberman over Lamont, the Democratic primary winner. 1000words Nov 2013 #80
""mandatory" coverage that conservatives hate"? thesquanderer Nov 2013 #73
You are correct -- and that's why this is all so sadly ironic Armstead Nov 2013 #75
Like you, I would have preferred there be a public option karynnj Nov 2013 #81
indeed. nt xchrom Nov 2013 #82
Eliminate the Medicare age requirement and tax the rich to pay for it. Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2013 #84
K&R quinnox Nov 2013 #87
But we'll never get it DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #88
I've been trying to get signed up for an individual policy and can't. JEB Nov 2013 #89
K&R LittleBlue Nov 2013 #91
We told you so NoOneMan Nov 2013 #95
I agree--a public option was never considered from day one AndyA Nov 2013 #96
Don't apologize, but talk to those Blue Dog Democrats, many of them no longer in Congress, Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2013 #98
In polls, 71% of the public favored the public option as part of reform. Before the wiggs Nov 2013 #99
I've been trying to look at the bright side of what we got, but this is a reminder that democracy yurbud Nov 2013 #100
Yep! Borchkins Nov 2013 #101
You know... I knew it was wrong from the beginning... ReRe Nov 2013 #102
I waited a long time to say it Armstead Nov 2013 #105
Do you actually know someone who is in that position? ReRe Nov 2013 #111
Public options fix websites? SpartanDem Nov 2013 #107
There were different versions kicking around at the time Armstead Nov 2013 #121
A public option The Wizard Nov 2013 #110
I do not give a fuck what conservatives hate. Enthusiast Nov 2013 #112
K & R !!! WillyT Nov 2013 #113
The ACA isn't the end. It's the beginning. jeff47 Nov 2013 #114
It's just the first step, but when will we start working on step 2? nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #133
Well, can't do public option or single payer until at least 2017.... (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #145
The Republicans would have called it communism! DireStrike Nov 2013 #117
They call EVERYTHING "communism!" DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #162
If we had had political leaders and not bought and paid for mercenaries truedelphi Nov 2013 #124
ty true questionseverything Nov 2013 #141
Of course - TBF Nov 2013 #127
Someone please tell me sulphurdunn Nov 2013 #128
It confers about the same benefit that having 50% of our profit margin truedelphi Nov 2013 #143
Thanks for the comparison. sulphurdunn Nov 2013 #166
Here's some nice cartoons, whose creators think like you and truedelphi Nov 2013 #190
Forward, not back. IronLionZion Nov 2013 #130
A public option was D.O.A. in front of the Senate Committee Botany Nov 2013 #132
Let us hope it is the "slippery slope" so greatly feared by detractors. libdem4life Nov 2013 #134
Just lower the age for Medicare. muntrv Nov 2013 #135
Well said. Thank you! nonoxy9 Nov 2013 #144
Medical for All (Single Payer)would have been the EASIEST 2banon Nov 2013 #146
I knew we were screwed Change has come Nov 2013 #147
And a lot more of the crap that's coming up Doctor_J Nov 2013 #148
I think Obama tried to do this iteratively... CoffeeCat Nov 2013 #154
This is the result area51 Nov 2013 #155
Or to hitch themselves to it. Now is the time to attack with a strong push for a public option. grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #159
Yes, but how would very, very rich people get richer? That's number one. nt valerief Nov 2013 #160
this is what happens when you run with the hares and hunt with the hounds srican69 Nov 2013 #163
Absolutely Correct louis c Nov 2013 #164
A public option would put the for-profit predators out of business in a decade. Scuba Nov 2013 #165
At the time, congress passed what they could! Win back congress B Calm Nov 2013 #167
Actually, it should have been the only reform in addition to Medicaid. Mass Nov 2013 #168
It would have been a better start Armstead Nov 2013 #169
You're absolutely right but... jimlup Nov 2013 #173
Nah....Watch Fox News Armstead Nov 2013 #179
Yeah actually now that I think about you're right jimlup Nov 2013 #185
medicare for all..... BlueJac Nov 2013 #174
Medicare for All paparush Nov 2013 #175
"We told you so" Estevan Nov 2013 #176
I think for myself and still say I told you so. Armstead Nov 2013 #180
Blinding flash of the obvious Politicub Nov 2013 #177
It's obvious but still sad and infuriating Armstead Nov 2013 #181
Agree 100% blackspade Nov 2013 #178
Well yea we wouldn't have got a plan at all in that case n/t doc03 Nov 2013 #184
We needed a Democratic House . . . everyone wanted single payer... fadedrose Nov 2013 #187
The planet on which an America had a Congress capable of passing single-payer... Orsino Nov 2013 #188
I said public option, not single payer Armstead Nov 2013 #189
Trouble is, the same forces would be arrayed against a public option. Orsino Nov 2013 #192

Skinner

(63,645 posts)
2. I supported (and still support) the public option...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

...but it would not have avoided any of this crap.

-- Even if there were a public option, the website still would not work.

-- Even if there were a public option, people with certain health plans would still not be able to keep their plans.

The inclusion of a public option would have had no effect on the two biggest problems we've faced since launch.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
6. Would not have been perfect -- but would have avoided a lot of the present problems
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:24 PM
Nov 2013

Yes, the technical website issues might have been an issue. But if it had been phased in by adding it to the present infrastructure of Medicare (and hopefully improving the whole thing in the process) a lot of these issues involving private insurance would not have been involved.

Yes the private insurance would have continued to plunder and pillage. But with a public alternative as competition, the forces of "the market" might have cleaned up their acts simply out of the need to compete and survive....Maybe they wouldn't, but there would have been an escape hatch for us consumers.

AND if people did lose private coverage, they would have someplace to go with a public option. That's an important difference.




treestar

(82,383 posts)
10. +1 that is one issue that has nothing to do with this.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:29 PM
Nov 2013

And still we have the issue of getting the votes out of Congress.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
18. It has everything tpo do with this
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:37 PM
Nov 2013

As the old saying goes: "If you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas."

The dogs are the insurance crooks. The current mess are the fleas.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
108. the public option would have been an insurance policy
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:39 PM
Nov 2013

the web site has nothing to do with insurance - any web site can have glitches. Insurance companies likely have smoothly running ones.

WyLoochka

(1,629 posts)
171. insurance companies websites
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:50 AM
Nov 2013

do not all run smoothly. That is actually one of the problems with the gov website. It needs to interact with 1500 different private, proprietary carrier websites to load data into those systems, which in turn need to crank data and generate the 'quotes' and get them back to the gov website to present to the applicants.

I work with insurance websites all day long. Many are just plain terrible as far as functionality and efficiency goes. They are all extremely quirky when it comes to cranking out the ratings. Many lock-up or totally crash unpredictably. The proprietary, fussy nature of all of them is one of the primary problems that is bogging down the programming of the gov website that needs to communicate with each these different, balky systems flawlessly.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
47. no the big problem is the cost
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:01 PM
Nov 2013

when did we have the discussion about what percentage of gross income is affordable and where are the peer reviewed studies backing up this number?

premiums plus out of pocket (especially for 50 plus) run from 25-33% of income

to be fair lets use 25% for healthcare
then 20% taxes
then 25% housing

thats 30% left for utilities,transportation,food,clothing.......is that what all you folks think is acceptable?

no one needs any1s personal info to verify this....just use the aca calculators and play with different number sets
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
53. A progressive sliding scale would make a big difference
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:08 PM
Nov 2013

Similar to how taxes are supposedly calculated.

The impact of 25 percent of income is a whole lot different if you're living on say $25,000 a year than if your income is $200,000 or more.

A formula that takes that into account could be used to lessen the impact on people with modest incomes by charging somewhat more for those with higher incomes.

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
83. A progressive sliding scale is why we needed single payer instead of mandates
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:19 PM
Nov 2013

A set tax rate based on income (with no cap) would have reduced the cost for everyone down to a reasonable level.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
136. public option could have a sliding scale
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:06 PM
Nov 2013

it would be 20% cheaper just because the "profit" would not be necessary

and it could further reduce costs by negotiating prices as the biggest provider of healthcare

no one would care about there crap insurance being cancelled if there was great low cost insurance to replace it

and if these policies offered were a great deal people would buy them by calling and snail mail if they had too

 

MyNameGoesHere

(7,638 posts)
78. Not Keeping existing plans would not have been a problem.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:56 PM
Nov 2013

Telling people they could keep them in unequivocal terms was the problem. It was either a failed political message or severe incompetence.

One of the easiest resolved problems too. I am waiting to see how they handle it. Or not.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
85. Even if there were a public option, the website still would not work. <- in it's present form, such
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:30 PM
Nov 2013

as it is, that's true.

But if there were a public option, more like Medicare, it wouldn't have needed to be so complex perhaps. Because we are signing up people on Medicare in freakin' droves while all this is going on - the numbers are 10 times or more from what I have seen.

As far as that last point in your post, however, if those with hi-deductible insurance had been left alone, there would have been a few thousand who wanted to be obstinate and pay more for less, but they wouldn't have had THIS to blame for their troubles. It wouldn't have made a nickels worth of difference in the overall economics of the bigger plan, as opposed to the cost of all this hoohaw, to just leave them alone and publicize the crap out of the benefits of the new law.

By the time the next year rolled around (which we may well see before the current web disaster gets a passing grade), a few more of them would have left their plans, and the insurance companies would raise prices on the remainder and tell them it's because of Obamacare. But the insurance cos in the exchange would be running ads saying "If YOUR INSURANCE CO isn't giving you the value you deserve, WE can", maybe with some funny old guy swinging around a dollar on a fishing pole. That would take all the wind out of their sails.

But we are where we are.

And while all this is going on, good jobs are still being replaced with crappy ones, and perfectly healthy people able to work are increasing the numbers of those not in the work force. sigh... our priorities are screwed up.

WyLoochka

(1,629 posts)
172. Not true
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 10:09 AM
Nov 2013

If we had a public option to buy into medicare the website would have likely worked for that option from the first week.

It would still have had the same problems with programming to use with many simple awful private carrier websites.

But, people would be signing up for the public plan by the millions while those bugs presented by the proprietary carrier systems were still being worked out.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
186. But they are already signing up for Medicare, without this so-called site. So it would
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:40 PM
Nov 2013

not have been needed in its present form. And a lot of this could have been avoided.

But that's all moot, for right now. And several million people are still without funds to get insurance, with no provision for them, at all, while people argue about other things and forget that those people are still out in the cold.



zeemike

(18,998 posts)
92. Medicare is an existing program...and has been working now for 50 years.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:52 PM
Nov 2013

I know because I am on it.
It is true though, that if the age was lowered to include all people they may have to had hire a few more people to handel the increase in people, but that in my opinion is a good thing to put more people to work...and probably could have done that with less then they paid for that failed website.
And with more younger and healthy people it would have made the program less expensive.

Medicare does not need a new website nor does it need navigators because it already exists and is simple compared to having to shop around on the so called free market.

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
106. +1.. They could have lowered the eligibility age a little bit each year
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:34 PM
Nov 2013

keeping a flood of people from hitting it all at once. The infrastructure is already there, it would have been easy to expand.. This whole issue is as stupid as the War On Drugs. There is an easy workable solution. Problem is insurance companies would lose a fortune and we can't have that! Better to have financially stable insurance companies than a healthy populace.

Sgent

(5,857 posts)
149. Yes but its not cheap
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:34 AM
Nov 2013

the un-subsidized cost of Medicare for 2013 is $960 / person / month. In addition, its got huge holes in it with an unlimited out of pocket expenditure and deductibles that are essentially unlimited as well.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
150. Where do you get those figures?
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:56 AM
Nov 2013

I have medicare, and it works out to be about 10% of my income...at that rate 960 would be with an income of 9k a month...or over 100k a year...what subsidies are you talking about?

I am talking about Medicare part A. not medicare advantage.

Sgent

(5,857 posts)
151. Ok subsidies was the wrong word
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:05 AM
Nov 2013

The correct word would have been "fully realized costs"

Medicare Part A premium costs $426 / month.
Medicare Part B premium costs $104.90 / month. + 314.70 Subsidy from General Fund
Medicare Part D Subsidy from general fund - 69.30 + premium (can vary)

Fully realized cost = $914.90 / month + Part D premium

Also keep in mind that Medicare only pays 80% of most Part B costs, has a $1,184 hospital deductible, a $147 Part B deductible, a $296 / day coinsurance for more than 60 days hospitalized, and $592 / day for 91+. In addition, there is a lifetime maximum of 365 days of hospital care, and mental health is only covered at 50%

http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html#collapse-4811

Note -- Medicare Part A premiums are only paid by a small group of people who haven't paid in the required number of years, are returning from disability, etc.

Medicare Part B is 25% paid by premiums, 75% by general fund subsidy.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
170. OK fully realized cost.
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:46 AM
Nov 2013

And you could then consider that cheep when you consider the pool you draw from consists of people over 65 who have the most health problems....which is the reason to make it for all so that "fully realized cost" could be brought down...same argument for ACA.

And by the way I know what they pay, I recieve Medicare and spent a week in the hospatal and am now recieving treatment reglary...and without it I would be dead by now...because I would have run out of money and resources long before my treatment was over...I know what the co pays are...without it I could not aford to continue to live.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
156. I have to disagree. The public plan would provide a cheaper/better plan, nullifying the logic in the
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:48 AM
Nov 2013

complaints.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
182. and very importantly.....
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:34 PM
Nov 2013

...we still would have every single Republican working their asses off to undermine every single aspect of the program, giving their darned best to ensure failure and lack of participation (which would aid towards failure)

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
3. Of course it would have.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

The issue of course is convincing a large enough percentage of the general population that implementing it doesn't mean the commies are going to jump out from under their bed and get them.

Until that happens good luck getting politicians to make a serious push to implement.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
19. It's part of the job of principled politicians to convince them otherwise
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:39 PM
Nov 2013

I realize "principled politicians" is an elusive breed these days. That's OUR fault as a nation for electing too many jerks.

sharp_stick

(14,400 posts)
4. I have yet to hear
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

someone come up with a way that a public option would have passed the House and or Senate.

Shit, the ACA barely passed the House and Senate, a public option would have gone nowhere just about as quickly as a single payer system.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
7. I said we as a nation collectively screwed up
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:27 PM
Nov 2013

If more Democrats had shown more backbone and actually ;pushed for it, and a few reasonable republicans had open minds, it could be passed.

While it is good that we at least tackled the problem, we surrendered before the battle even started.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
60. True, but there are many of them
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:24 PM
Nov 2013

But they are being smothered by the bat-shit ones.

However, that's something their side has to hash out.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
137. it had passed the house
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:14 PM
Nov 2013

when dems started talking about using reconciliation to pass it(we easily had 50 votes) the following happened....

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
158. Simply by persuading 1 senator with an ambassadorship, cabinet position or
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:53 AM
Nov 2013

completion of a pet project.

Politics 101.

A no brainer.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
183. EXACTLY!!!
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:34 PM
Nov 2013
It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable.

But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. "

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/


Other Presidents have known how to make offers that can't be refused.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Joe Lieberman had reared up on his back legs and told LBJ he wasn't going to vote for Medicare?




brooklynite

(93,857 posts)
5. No it wouldn't
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:17 PM
Nov 2013

Clearly Single Payer would have obviated the need for all these gyrations.

HOWEVER, a Public Option would have prevented none.

The Public Option would one of the items in the Health Exchange which wouldn't be easily reachable because of the software bugs.

And however attractive the PUblic Option was, there would be those who insisted on keeping their existing minimal coverage who would be getting cancellation notices because the plans didn't meet the minimum threshold.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
12. Maybe but....
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:31 PM
Nov 2013

1) The software bugs came from setting up this baroque "exchange. A public option could have been added to the existing infrastructure for Medicare, by adding to the allowed age range....Not easy, but a lot simpler than this mess.

2) You can't stop people who prefer to be bilked and screwed by private insurance plans. But with a decent public alternative, over time many of them would choose to go with a decent public plan .

brooklynite

(93,857 posts)
20. How does adding a Public Option to Medicare address matters?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:40 PM
Nov 2013

Again, we are not talking about Single Payer. The Public Option is an OPTION: a choice among it an private plans.

As to your second point, the problem is not that people don't, in general, like the options they have available and can save money with them; it's that the President promised "You can keep your existing plan" with no apparent provisos.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
26. An Option is an improvement over the private insurance monopoly....
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:46 PM
Nov 2013

At least it offers another choice. A step in the right direction.

The issue of the President's promises are a political issue....shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind

brooklynite

(93,857 posts)
42. But that's not what your OP discussed...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:55 PM
Nov 2013

You claim that having the Public Option would have prevented the problems ACA is experienceing now. It wouldn't

SpartanDem

(4,533 posts)
109. But that was never the plan
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:40 PM
Nov 2013

the P.O was always going to be it's own separate insurance plan sold on the exchange.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
123. Back at the time, had we an outstandingly progressive President who
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:19 PM
Nov 2013

used this Bully Pulpit to get it bashed over the Congress people's heads that this public option was what poll after poll showed we in America wanted, perhaps then we would have gotten it.

But instead of a FDR-style President, we had a man who pretended that he had to distance himself from using the Bully Pulpit, because of the Constitutional requirement about the separation of powers. (Notice how he didn't feel there was such a provision when he wanted to take this nation to war against Syria recently.)

And Obama pretended that Rahm Emanuel and Liz Fowler were not receiving Big Time Big Insurance people in meetings held a block down from the WH, or inside the WH basement itself.

As a reward for his efforts to write up the exact legalese for legislation on the ACa that the Big Insurers and Big Pharma wanted, Rahm Emauel easily secured a lot of campaign monies, and now he is "da Mayor" of Chicago.

And Liz Fowler almost immediately garnered an impressive, cushy and lucrative job inside the Biggest of the Big Insurers..

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
40. I blame Obama for letting blue dogs write the bill.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:54 PM
Nov 2013

You can't start negotiations in the middle and expect to get anything close to what you wanted.

Of course, many wonder if Obama ever wanted a PO in the first place.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
115. Lieberman was never going to vote for a PO.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:28 PM
Nov 2013

There were a number of Senate Dems who were never going to vote YES for a PO ... but even if we pretend that the President cold some how get all of them to vote YES, Lieberman was never going to provide that final vote.

1) Lieberman campaigned with McCain against Obama.
2) Lieberman was not running again.
3) Lieberman was known as the "Senator from Aetna".

Lieberman wanted to be SecDEF or SecState. McCain would have given one of those slots. Obama screwed that up. And Lieberman is a vindictive turd.

Not so long ago, Lieberman left the Senate and took a conservative think tank job ... which was his payoff.

He was never going to vote yes. Even if you could flip the others, he wasn't going to jeopardize his golden parachute out of the Senate.

get the red out

(13,459 posts)
9. Well, yea
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:29 PM
Nov 2013

But our country was so propagandized against it that I'm still amazed that anything was done at all.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
97. I'm not
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:05 PM
Nov 2013

The mandate is what the insurance industry wanted and they got it...the rest they can and will change by buying it in the congress.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
11. Why has no Democrat stepped forward to take advantage of the hysteria with a
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:30 PM
Nov 2013

Medicare for All plan? It wouldn't pass, but if you frame it as a choice between going backward and doing absolutely nothing (the GOP) and going forward with the negative effects of the current ACA implementation, maybe people will be more receptive to the message of single-payer. At the very least, it shifts the debate in the Democrats' direction, and ups pressure on insurance co's to stop being utter assholes if they want to survive.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
17. Now is the time, then. Publicize it out the wazoo, and get Reid to allow consideration.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:37 PM
Nov 2013

Republicans knew all of their attempts to repeal Obamacare were not going to result in the repeal of Obamacare--they did it because it kept the law in the news as a BAD THING WE DON'T WANT. Democrats can stand up for single payer as a GOOD THING WE ALL WANT, over and over again, until it becomes the accepted framing.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
22. I agree...But the horse is out of the barn....at least for a while.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:41 PM
Nov 2013

Hopefully the mess will revive the public option at some point.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
21. Not at all...the rollout still would have had huge bugs in it
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:41 PM
Nov 2013

The actual policy we ended up with, does not change the fact that the website has some serious flaws that must be fixed by programmers.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
23. Not necessarily if it had been phased into gthe present Medicare system
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:43 PM
Nov 2013

Ideally it could have been incorporated into that, while also improving the Medicare system in the process.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
25. True if they would have gone that route, but they did not.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:45 PM
Nov 2013

If they would have picked a better company then CGI to build the infrastructure needed to handle the site and the servers, we would not be having this conversation.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
31. I'd rather not be having this conversation....I'd much rather...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:48 PM
Nov 2013

that we were basking in the success of adding a humane alternative to the swamp of private insurance, and the benefits would have helped more people would come to accept the concept of public insurance as a good thing

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
52. I hear that, Nixon and Agnew should have never been allowed
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:07 PM
Nov 2013

to create the for-profit insurance industry. Crooks writing policy is a bad idea and it shows all these decades later.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
24. Well, duh.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:43 PM
Nov 2013

But only an ACA props up the private health insurers.

We need universal single-payer, such as the civilized nations have.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
28. Complain to Joe Lieberman...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:48 PM
Nov 2013

(and those that support the current filibuster rules)...

From October, 2009:
Public option would lead him to filibuster, key senator says
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/

tblue

(16,350 posts)
79. That would include Harry Reid.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:59 PM
Nov 2013

Thank him for continuing to make deals with McConnell and the party of sabotage.

solarhydrocan

(551 posts)
90. and Max Baucus who had single payer advocates arrested at a hearing
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:42 PM
Nov 2013

which, not surprisingly, is almost completely forgotten



Baucus’s Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare

Advocates of single-payer universal healthcare — the system favored by most Americans — continue to protest their exclusion from discussions on healthcare reform. On Tuesday, five doctors, nurses and single-payer advocates were arrested at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, bringing the total number of arrests in less than a week to thirteen. We speak with two of those arrested: Single Payer Action founder Russell Mokhiber and Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program. [includes rush transcript]
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and


If a Republican had done that this board would have been outraged. And have never forgotten it.
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
34. The same way that peace and harmony would avoid most wars.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:50 PM
Nov 2013

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
39. So we should never have ideals or goals?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:54 PM
Nov 2013

That's how the opposition continues to win. Too many of us are dead-end cynics and give up before things even begin.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
48. No, not at all. You're right, cynicism is our worst enemy.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:01 PM
Nov 2013

But I think Obama, being on the political front lines and being a very smart individual, is better qualified to know what was possible and what was not.

Single payer was never going to happen and is even less likely now. That's just reality, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
58. Maybe not single payer...But the Public Option was a compromise on that
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:22 PM
Nov 2013

I am convinced (call me naive) that if there had truly been an effort to push a Public Option as simply OFFERING PEOPLE AN ADDITIONAL CHOICE, the majority of average people would have seen it in a more positive light and supported it.

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
59. Lieberman and the blue dogs said no at the time. A Medicare for those 55 and above was thrown down
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:24 PM
Nov 2013

And rejected.

Until more progressives are elected, cynical or not, it just won't happen

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
138. we had plenty of votes to go to reconciliation in the senate
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:16 PM
Nov 2013
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

lostincalifornia

(3,639 posts)
139. The reality was it wasn't going to happen because there were not enough progressives. Until there
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:24 PM
Nov 2013

Are, I don't see it happening soon


questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
142. we had more than 50 senators on record supporting it
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:33 PM
Nov 2013

reconciliation was just not used

with the last huge dem betrayal(no public option) we will probably never be in as good a position again

Rilgin

(787 posts)
77. a Pubic Option Bill was passed in the house
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:56 PM
Nov 2013

You do know that the House passed the ACA with a public option included months before the Senate passed the Baucus drafted one. Even before Baucus had a plan drafted.

Obama instead of supporting the House bill which had already been passed and pushing for its passage in the Senate, dismissed it and said he would support what came out of Baucus's committee (which guaranteed it would be weak and without a public option) months later. He gave that support when the Baucus bill was not even written.

Also know that Baucus's committee was NOT the only Senate Committee to have input on the Senate Bill and Obama could again have supported some other senator and committee to write the Senate Bill.

Now maybe with Presidential support and activity the House Bill or a Senate Bill not written by Baucus would have failed the Senate vote. Obama lovers seem to simply assert this as fact rather than opinion. We will never know but lots of bills and laws would have withered on the vine if presidents just assumed that they had no ability to influence a congressional vote that initially looked bad and it may not even be fact that it initially looked bad.

As people have pointed out, his negotiation strategy was not conducive to obtaining the public option from conservative democrats as a compromise. His starting position was giving it away rather than giving away a direct government health care role for public insurance role as the compromise.

However, a public option ACA might have failed no matter what but it is also not FACT that this would not progress us to a better health care system then a passed kludged inadequate ACA. We have seen that gun bills fail but the issue does not die. If the ACA failed, the health care issues would not have disappeared and the pressures for solutions would have continued and increased in intensity.

The main defenses of the ACA lovers are based on two assertions labeled facts that are not facts. They are mere assertions and opinions issued without any supporting evidence (other than just saying certain senators initially said they would initially not vote for a bill with the public option (i.e. Lieberman)). Please notice that recently, republicans said they would never pass the continuing resolution without budget cuts but ended up passing it anyway. Politics is a process not static. Saying a senator said something publicly at the beginning of the process says nothing about what will actually occur in the process. As proof note that Obama said at the start of the process that to obtain his signature, the ACA had to have a public option but he ended up signing the ACA without a public option.

My personal belief and opinion is that with presidential and public pressure Obama could have pealed off sufficient moderate Republican Senators and kept the democratic senators together to pass whatever ACA he really wanted. My second opinion is that the ACA is fatally flawed since it is a small bill that just modestly reforms the private insurance market for individuals without really solving our health care system problems and that its solutions impose real costs on the young and healthy that would be better paid for by taxes than by forcing people to take the time to buy insurance then subsidizing those purchases for some of them.

The beauty of a medicare for all plan versus forcing people to buy things they are not currently using is that the benefits of the system become clear at the time of utilization and the system does not require costs and time before then other than opening an envelope to receive your national health care card.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
93. Yes I remembr the frustration over that
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:53 PM
Nov 2013

Many Democrats did support a public option to varying degrees. It was frustrating that Obama and the corporate "center" squashed that.

 

go west young man

(4,856 posts)
153. Sorry.
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:14 AM
Nov 2013

On double check I see that you have been here for quite a long time. The low post count threw me off. Just goes to show that some DU'ers who post relatively infrequently have great things to add. Cheers.

Rilgin

(787 posts)
191. No Need for apology
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 10:25 PM
Nov 2013

No need for an apology but thank you for your belated welcome. I actually dont think I got one on my first actual post.

I am pretty quiet for as long as I have been here. I mostly lurk and only occasionally post.

I actually use DU and other message boards for getting news and facts. I find that I digest facts better in the context of arguments although being the internet I reserve judgement on how much certainty on the fact.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
37. If more Democrats had shown backbone...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:52 PM
Nov 2013

and pressed for at least the public option, that would have made a big difference.

Some did, but too many wafflers and opportunists are in Congress at the present time.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
35. Exactly. And one of the big reasons they gave for not pursuing it was it would behard to set up.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:50 PM
Nov 2013

Harder than the one we have now?

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
140. Shouldn't be hard to set up, there are many excellent working systems throught the world
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:25 PM
Nov 2013

that could be looked to for guidance. The real reason they didn't pursue it is (a) Insurance Companies donate huge sums of $$$ to our career politicians making their easy job even easier, and (b) the insurance industry is 1/6 of this nations economy. Single payer would put the health insurers OUT OF BUSINESS as a for profit middleman between you and your doctor, and would eliminate a major cash cow for congress critters campaign kitty. I think when you ask yourself WHY, the best bet is to look at the obvious that cannot be spoken publicly...aka campaign contributions and graft.

Iggo

(47,487 posts)
50. Welll yeah, that.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:05 PM
Nov 2013

We're saving corporations over people, and there's no sugarcoating it when it comes to the health-care/medical-insurance debacle.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
41. No s#!t.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:55 PM
Nov 2013

I have so many unanswered questions about this clusterf\/(k. One of the excuses as to why it couldn't go into effect until 2014 was in order to have time to get it up and running. If I were the Prez, I would sign an executive order stating that all those people who were cancelled could buy a Medicare policy for the same price as their canceled junk policy until all the kinks in the exchanges are worked out.

libodem

(19,288 posts)
44. Absolutely
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:57 PM
Nov 2013

One good thing about the ACA, I contend, is that it put our foot in the door, for expansion. The more Republicans and Insurance 'scorpions', bitch the more we should push back with this idea.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
49. How would a public option stop insurers from canceling policies?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:05 PM
Nov 2013

The public option is a policy on the exchange. It has nothing to do with insurers complying with ACA and exploiting that claim to cancel policies.

If there was a public option on the exchange, those who got cancellation letters could do what they can do now: shop the exchange.

The problem is the insurance companies weren't directing people to the exchanges. They were simply canceling policies and dictating the new policy and price, and refusing to let people know they could shop the exchanges for a better plan.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
54. It might not. But....
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:12 PM
Nov 2013

A) Insurance companies are obviously doing what they want to do under the current ACA system, just as they would without it.

B) If there were a public option, at least the people who get mugged by private insurer would at least have somewhere else to go for guaranteed affordable coverage

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
51. Oh you can say it, but does that help us in the next election?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:06 PM
Nov 2013

Are you serious considering the disaster that this implementation has been so far that we start telling the people that if we had gone to Single Payer, things would have been better we swear it? They wouldn't vote us out of office so much as laugh us out of office. We'd be lucky to maintain our seats in San Francisco, Seattle, and New York.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
56. I'm not talking about the partisan political frame
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:15 PM
Nov 2013

The effin' politicians can say whatever they want.

There's more to life (and death) than partisan politics.

In this case the political system failed to perform adequately, and pressure from outside the partisan straightjackets are needed to deal with a basic social pfroblem.

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
86. But there is no way to accomplish anything without partisan politics.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:31 PM
Nov 2013

You can stand on the street corner from now till you die of extreme old age shouting that we need single payer. But you aren't going to get it without politicians voting to make it happen, and you're not going to get that if the Republicans win in 2014, and worse, 2016.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
94. True but they have to be hand-in-hand
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:59 PM
Nov 2013

The problem, frankly, is that there has become too much of a division between those advocating positions that actually benefit people, and the behavior and high-handed arrogance of too many of the politicians who get elected by pretending to be more ,liberal than they show themselves to be once in office.

Bill Clinton is a classic example. Listening to many of his speeches or interviews it still seems like he really "gets it." But his behavior in office often ran counter to his professed ideals.

So it requires people "standing on the street corner" to create the attitudes that will elect more of the good ones like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders et al. who really would make a difference if there were more of them in DC....and then to make sure they stay honest once they get there.

 

scheming daemons

(25,487 posts)
55. Public Option wouldn't have prevented web site problems... or cancelled policies
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:15 PM
Nov 2013

And... it would've been impossible to pass the ACA with a public option in it.

Had zero Republican votes without it... and with it would've lost those + some Democratic votes.



This was the best bill that could get passed.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
57. To repeat from my original post...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:19 PM
Nov 2013

"As a nation we collectively screwed the pooch on this one. "

We all screwed up, from the average person up to the White House.

I don't give a shit about the petty political games that were involved. It was one of those situations where the entire political framework failed us all for a combination of reasons.

cbdo2007

(9,213 posts)
69. It would have had it's own "disasters" included with its implementation.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:42 PM
Nov 2013

Everyone here is delusional if they think any large scale implementation like this could go off without a hitch.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
104. Unless the public option was Medicare.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:22 PM
Nov 2013

Then we would not need a new web site or navagators...the system was already in place and working.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
116. Must've missed the roll-out of Medicare part D
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:29 PM
Nov 2013

That took a while to work out the problems. It's very amusing to go back to Captain Orange's comments about that, and compare them to his comments about the ACA.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
118. Not the same thing
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:47 PM
Nov 2013

I was not suggesting creating a new program for Medicare, just letting people on the one that now exists

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
119. There would be something that goes wrong.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:53 PM
Nov 2013

That large of an expansion of the program would likely exhaust the existing server capacity if nothing else.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
120. Well I never went on line for Medicare...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:59 PM
Nov 2013

It was not nessesary...and I did not have to shop around and chose a plan...it was strait forward and simple.
But sure when you scale things up things can go wrong, but not like creating something from scrach...especialy when you hire an incompetent company to do it for you.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
122. Actually, you did choose a plan.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:12 PM
Nov 2013

You chose the default one.

And while you did not have to enter that choice into a computer, someone else did. And when you go to the doctor, they gotta enter your information somewhere in order to get paid by HHS. And so on, and so on.

Medicare-D was a relatively small addition to Medicare - For example, the people were already "in the system" instead of having to sign up. It still went wrong for a while, just like all new programs do. Medicare did when it was first rolled out. So did Social Security.

In any sufficiently complex endeavour, something will go wrong. Right now, there's some people blowing up the problems the ACA is having for political gain. But they won't tell you that the sign-ups are going at about the same rate as in Massachusetts when they rolled out their system.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
125. Yes but that system is already there and working.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:33 PM
Nov 2013

which was my point.
Scaling it up is far more simple than creating a new one.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
126. Not always.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:41 PM
Nov 2013

It's quite possible that there are plenty of hidden land-mines in any legacy system. There could be something buried in their code that gets very upset when someone is entered into "regular" Medicare yet is younger than 65.

Point is even with "Medicare for all", something would get screwed up. And the same people shouting about Healthcare.gov would be shouting about it. They would portray it as just as large a disaster.

We aren't dealing with the "reality-based community" here.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
129. Well of course you are right.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:57 PM
Nov 2013

They would scream about anything that was done.
But the fix would not cost half a billion dollars to fix any glitch in the existing system...I am sure any IT guru could find and fix it in a day or so.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
64. Everyone blocked it -- each in our own way
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:31 PM
Nov 2013

Including us supporters who gave up and didn't press hard enough for it

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
62. Yup ... trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:27 PM
Nov 2013

We need a public service, not a consumer product.

 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
63. Free healthcare for all paid for by 90% tax rate on those with incomes above $750,000
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:31 PM
Nov 2013

would also have avoided these problems. Of course, neither would have had a snow ball's chance in hell of passing the senate in 2010. But please proceed.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
71. Yes. I acknowledge that in terms of the make of Congress at that time...and its worse now
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:46 PM
Nov 2013

But I am am talking about fighting for what is needed beyond the transitory political structire of any given year.

We need as a nation to press for relief from this oppressive health system. Ideally the Democratic Party should be championing real reform too.

Once there is enough public sentiment for a system based on common sense and common decency, the political hacks will have to go along.

In other words, I am very familiar with the political obstacles, but that does not mean we should just roll over and surrender on this or any issue.

 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
72. hey, I'm agreeing. Need a whole lot more education of the public to get critical mass
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:48 PM
Nov 2013

and necessary political force to make that happen.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
70. So would a magic wand, if we'd had one that could have given
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:43 PM
Nov 2013

us Medicare for all.

So?

You're preaching to the choir here. What DUer wouldn't have supported a public option -- as an option.

But it wasn't an option because we had Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut, home of the largest insurance companies in the world, asserting his independence and refusing to join Democrats in supporting a public option. So it wasn't passable. We needed 60 votes for cloture and we didn't have them. And then Sen. Kennedy died and replaced by a Republican and we weren't even close.

We didn't screw the pooch as a nation. Lieberman screwed the nation.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
74. No...If we allowed a situation where one man can hold off systemic reform...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:50 PM
Nov 2013

then we all screwed up.

Excuses based on temporary situations are simply rationalizations for giving up and not working on the bigger picture.

Our side makes too many excuses too often.

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
80. 33% of CT Democrats chose Lieberman over Lamont, the Democratic primary winner.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:07 PM
Nov 2013

Who "screwed the nation," again?

thesquanderer

(11,954 posts)
73. ""mandatory" coverage that conservatives hate"?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:50 PM
Nov 2013

I thought it was originally their idea. Unless you mean the libertarian ones.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
75. You are correct -- and that's why this is all so sadly ironic
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:52 PM
Nov 2013

Obama gave conservatives what they had originally asked for, and they still turned against him.

There's a lesson there about the mistake of giving up at the beginning in hopes of winning hearts that won't be won.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
81. Like you, I would have preferred there be a public option
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:08 PM
Nov 2013

but, it would not have helped the two biggest problems - the web site not working and people getting the rejection letters.

What it would have done would have been to compete with the other plans - likely leading to price containment.

DissidentVoice

(813 posts)
88. But we'll never get it
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:34 PM
Nov 2013

Not with this version of the Democratic Party, nor with ANY version of the Republican Party.

Bill Clinton caved in 1994.

Barack Obama caved to Max Baucus.

 

JEB

(4,748 posts)
89. I've been trying to get signed up for an individual policy and can't.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:34 PM
Nov 2013

Finally received paper application but when I called for assistance filling out form and answering questions for complicated choices I was referred to Insurance sales person. I don't think he knows any more than I do. Feels a bit like Russian roulette and time is running out. And Oregon is supposed to be one of the better ones. My current plan is just fill out the application as best I can, send it in and see what happens.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
91. K&R
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:46 PM
Nov 2013
Because of this, in my opinion, the loony left has every right to say "We told you so."


Well put. Recall how many defended the president when he took single payer off the table without a fight.

Now it's come back to bite us in the ass.

AndyA

(16,993 posts)
96. I agree--a public option was never considered from day one
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:05 PM
Nov 2013

I remember protestors being escorted out of the committee while committee members sat there and laughed about it.

I still believe the public option is the way to go.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
98. Don't apologize, but talk to those Blue Dog Democrats, many of them no longer in Congress,
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:06 PM
Nov 2013

who were too cowardly to support a public option. That was the problem from Day #1.

There were never enough votes for the public option because even though Democrats had the majority in the House and a short-term majority in the Senate, the Blue Dogs held out over the public option. We were never going to get one.

Cry over spilt milk now, but our job is to elect more progressive Democrats to office in the House and Senate next year. That's the only chance left to have the public option that we really want.

wiggs

(7,788 posts)
99. In polls, 71% of the public favored the public option as part of reform. Before the
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:07 PM
Nov 2013

GOP, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, Dick Armey, and the Koch Brothers started to piss all over it 24/7.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
100. I've been trying to look at the bright side of what we got, but this is a reminder that democracy
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:07 PM
Nov 2013

had little to do with it.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
102. You know... I knew it was wrong from the beginning...
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:12 PM
Nov 2013

... but I was willing to go on and not say "I-told-you-so," because I remember the time I did not have insurance and needed it desperately. That uninsured people are getting insurance is the very reason we need to hold our tongue. I just hope and pray this rough spot passes soon. Let the stupid brain-dead zombies who can't add and subtract and has money to burn... let them have their junk insurance. Who are we to worry about their money for them? Huh?

Boehner says "Let's scrap this law." Fuck you, John Boehner. The debate is over. It's the Law!

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
105. I waited a long time to say it
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:24 PM
Nov 2013

But now many people who need it are finding that insurance is just as unaffordable as it ever was....Many people are still falling through the cracks still -- and now that private insurance is mandated they also have to worry about the penalty for not buying something they can't afford.

It's a damn mess -- and one that could have been avoided.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
111. Do you actually know someone who is in that position?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:58 PM
Nov 2013

I thought if you could not afford it, that it would be subsidized. Where did I jump the track? Do they have to cough it up along the way (each month) and then get it back at the end of the year? I have two sons who work low-wage jobs and they are going to apply for it. Guess I'll find out about it when they sign up.

Look it... we should have single payer. But we don't. We have what we have for now. And we have to move on. Life goes on and we will fight like hell to have single payer as soon as we can get a President who will lead the way.

When I was a kid, when I was dirt poor, my Mama would tell me to count my blessings. I couldn't do it, as I didn't see the blessings. There's just no blessings to be found when you're dirt poor. Now that I'm all grown up, I have learned how to count blessings.

SpartanDem

(4,533 posts)
107. Public options fix websites?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:37 PM
Nov 2013

and let's remember the p.o was going to be it's own separate non-profit insurance plan,it had nothing to do with medicare. It was only going to be sold to exchange and today the website that would be selling it, isn't super functional.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
121. There were different versions kicking around at the time
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:01 PM
Nov 2013

Medicare, private plan...whatever. the principle would be the same.

yes any rollout is going to have issues -- but IMO the insurance industry monster that we have now only makes the implications worse.

The Wizard

(12,482 posts)
110. A public option
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:48 PM
Nov 2013

would have caused more Democrats to come out and vote in 2010 rather than stay home in disgust. Remember, single payer was the goal and the public option was the compromise position. Taking it off the table at the onset of negotiations was an absolutely idiotic capitulation that set the tone for Obama's first term making him appear weak and fearful of the minority.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
112. I do not give a fuck what conservatives hate.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:09 PM
Nov 2013

If conservatives hate something, it is on the right track.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
114. The ACA isn't the end. It's the beginning.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:27 PM
Nov 2013

A national-level public option would be a very tough political battle right now.

A California-level public option? Not very hard. Vermont? Already planning to go single payer in 2017.

The battle for public option/single payer in the blue states is much, much easier. So we will be doing that. Public options, without the need to profit, will do a pretty good job out-competing the insurance companies. As the private company's risk pools are devastated, they'll be forced to pull back from public option states.

The successes of these "blue state" programs will destroy the FUD about such programs - no giant piles of dead bodies will make it hard to argue such programs will result in a pile of dead bodies. That will let us push on into the "purple" states. Victories there will let us pick off a few red states, and return to the national battle in a much stronger position - against a devastated health insurance industry.

Just because the ACA passed doesn't mean the job is done.

DireStrike

(6,452 posts)
117. The Republicans would have called it communism!
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 06:39 PM
Nov 2013

We had to push a more neutral approach in order to avoid being tarred and feathered as Marxists!


Hang on... I'm being told that the ex-republican plan called Obamacare or the ACA, pushed by the Democrats in 2009, is being called "big government" "not market based" and "socialism".

And they didn't provide us with one vote despite nearly a year of politicking to get their support! And they are now saying that it was rammed through undemocratically despite a year of politicking to get their support!

WHO EVER COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING?! Certainly not President Obama. He only plays N-Dimensional chess. You need to play Quantum Vulcan chess to realize that the republicans will run hard right and oppose every Democratic initiative. Damn, we need a smarter guy next time! Next time this won't happen! Definitely not! If only we had 80 Senators instead of 60! Wait, 99.

Better make it a hundred. Then maybe you can get your pony, firebagger.

DissidentVoice

(813 posts)
162. They call EVERYTHING "communism!"
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:58 AM
Nov 2013

If it isn't hardcore Reaganist/Randism, it's automatically Communism.

I am very disappointed with President Obama not pushing for single payer.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
124. If we had had political leaders and not bought and paid for mercenaries
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:27 PM
Nov 2013

In elected office, we would have had the public option.

If it had not come about originally, it could have come about through reconciliation:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x524410

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
141. ty true
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:30 PM
Nov 2013

a good bill had passed the house

the senate just needed to go to reconciliation to bypass the filibuster

there,"where are the votes people" drive me nuts

we had them,then

TBF

(31,922 posts)
127. Of course -
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:42 PM
Nov 2013

But now I think we have to work on salvaging what we've got. We do not need to be wiped off the ballots in 2014 - the states have become reactionary enough and especially in Texas this is hurting folks on a daily basis.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
128. Someone please tell me
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:55 PM
Nov 2013

what benefit private health insurance confers upon society that public insurance wouldn't confer for much less money.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
143. It confers about the same benefit that having 50% of our profit margin
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:39 PM
Nov 2013

Going off to the Big Financial Firms, or all our Federal monies going to MIC-Surveillance programs does.

In other words, as long as a person is part of the One Percent, it is all of great, great benefit.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
166. Thanks for the comparison.
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:46 AM
Nov 2013

Of course, now I need an explanation of how running a country for the benefit of a fraction of the people benefits all of the people, unless pay to play politics, invisible hands picking their pocket and corporate capitalism benefits them in some way I can't fathom due to its complexity and my own intellectual limitations.

Botany

(70,291 posts)
132. A public option was D.O.A. in front of the Senate Committee
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 08:35 PM
Nov 2013

It would have gone nowhere with Baucus and Grassely. Both of them were and
are still owned by the insurance companies, big Pharma, and the for profit health care
companies.



Sometimes you have to do what you can get done knowing that it is not all that you want to
get done.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
146. Medical for All (Single Payer)would have been the EASIEST
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:49 PM
Nov 2013

to transition to. As Michael Moore pointed out to Congress back in 2009-2010 (when Dems had the House majority) - All that had to be done is make an already existing system, with an existing billing structure etc. simply cover everyone. TA DA! Could be a good moment to make it so.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
148. And a lot more of the crap that's coming up
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:02 AM
Nov 2013

He's either clueless, the worst politician ever, or a corporate whore

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
154. I think Obama tried to do this iteratively...
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:48 AM
Nov 2013

I think Obama tried to go halfway with healthcare reform. I believe this was the only way he was going to get Democrats (and some Republicans) to support ANY reform.

I remember when he told the liberals that we weren't going to get everything we wanted. I trust that single payer was his ultimate goal, but there is no way in hell he could start with that. The health-insurance lobby is just too powerful.

The problem is--Obama (and probably many of us) underestimated the mean-spiritedness and the vindictive behavior of the Republicans. They will do anything to sink Obamacare. They are dissuading people from signing up, so the numbers are low and they can call it a failure. They are working 24/7 to ensure that this thing fails in spades.

I just had a conversation with a friend in California who called the exchange to buy a healthcare plan. She was told that the prices for the various plans won't be revealed until December. So, the frickin health-insurance companies aren't disclosing the plan prices for a few weeks. My friend didn't sign up of course, without the prices. Who the hell would???

There are many forces working against us.

area51

(11,868 posts)
155. This is the result
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:30 AM
Nov 2013

of Obama & congress adopting a completely republican plan -- mandatory private insurance, no public option -- that was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich. They should've known better than to take that Trojan Horse.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
165. A public option would put the for-profit predators out of business in a decade.
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:41 AM
Nov 2013

That's why the Democrats had to kill it.

Remember, ZERO Republicans voted for the ACA. Zero. We could have had a public option. We could have had Medicare for All.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
167. At the time, congress passed what they could! Win back congress
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:01 AM
Nov 2013

in 2014 and I'm sure they will put a public option on the table.

Mass

(27,315 posts)
168. Actually, it should have been the only reform in addition to Medicaid.
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:39 AM
Nov 2013

People could keep their plans if they wanted or they could go to the public option or add a new plan.

May be the transition would have been slower, but without the corporate overheads, it would have been less expensive and gotten plenty of people in. Why do you think the insurance companies wanted Obamacare (and oppose any plant to change it) and did not want the public option.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
169. It would have been a better start
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:45 AM
Nov 2013

It would not have gotten into the mess of mandatory coverage, and also the fact that it offered an additional choice would have been accepted more redily by the public

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
173. You're absolutely right but...
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:14 PM
Nov 2013

the conservatives would have had a conniption fit 10x larger than the huge one they are already having.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
179. Nah....Watch Fox News
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:21 PM
Nov 2013

The whole channel is branding this watered down, conservative corporate inspired health plan as socialism, liberalism run amok, dangerous, a takeover of the economy thorough the health care system, etc.

They coudn;t have said anything worse about a public option than they have already said about this little tweak.



jimlup

(7,968 posts)
185. Yeah actually now that I think about you're right
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:06 PM
Nov 2013

they couldn't act worse than they already are so we might as well have gone the whole way rather than this appeasement to the Holy Grail of "capitalism."

paparush

(7,964 posts)
175. Medicare for All
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:37 PM
Nov 2013

A simple slogan.
People are familiar with Medicare.
People like Medicare.

The Dems should have united around this simple slogan, repeated it a bazillion times, and let one of the most gifted orators of our time deliver the message.

Estevan

(70 posts)
176. "We told you so"
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:48 PM
Nov 2013

is just lazy thinking. Unless you have the memory of a housefly you should know damned well the public option was blocked by blue dogs like Lincoln and Baucus and Lieberman. You swallow all the media hyperbole about "the huge mess" of the ACA. Just think for yourself for once...Sheeesh..

Politicub

(12,163 posts)
177. Blinding flash of the obvious
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:54 PM
Nov 2013

I don't know if anyone who is progressive disagrees with you.

We need to get dems elected so we get to shape the law - not the GOP.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
188. The planet on which an America had a Congress capable of passing single-payer...
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:02 PM
Nov 2013

...would be a very different one.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
189. I said public option, not single payer
Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:10 PM
Nov 2013

..although I also disagree with your characterization of single player as a virtual impossibility.

Wouldn't take a different planet. Just some readjustments in the political situation and a smarter way to communicate it to the public.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sorry I've just got to sa...