Reply #5: They are right to and they back Medicare for all, HR676, which replaces

[Cleita]

all private insurance plans because the public option being talked about is more private insurance. What's public about that? One of the plans being talked about is to allocate a trillion dollars for people to buy the insurance they want. How is this a medical plan like Medicare? It's more insurance company BS with the cherry picking, deductibles and claims denied by claims adjusters. Also, it creates a two tiered system of the haves and have nots which causes such plans to erode like Medicaid has because nobody really cares about poor people and that requires means testing. The rest of us get to keep and pay for the system we already have. Where is the reform in this? The second plan is insurance cooperatives, which won't be able to spread the risk enough and they will be forced to limit coverage and deny more claims. Also, it will open the door for the big insurers to offer something similar undercutting the competition of the smaller companies.

My take is that if PNHP digs in their heels, with our backing, the compromise might involve HR676 or an improved Medicare for all being put out there for everyone to buy into if they want it. It should be made affordable for everyone, which would require some government subsidies for those whose employers don't buy into it and who can't afford to buy to buy individually. I hope anyway that it takes some form like this. I'm sure private insurance will still be available. But that would be the compromise. Otherwise in the "compromise", the public option will take the form of what I outlined above. We will end up back at square one but with the insurance companies and HMOs walking away with an additional trillion dollars.