Public Option = Dead

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Parts Unknown

Fork tender
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
4
Can we drop the doomsaying with regards to the public option? It has never had the votes to make it through. The option's continued presence in any bill likely has more to do with bargaining than any realistic legislative outcome.

Conrad Sees Little Chance for Public Option

A crucial Democratic member of the Finance Committee, the panel devising what is considered to be the prime vehicle for health-care reform legislation in the Senate, said on Sunday that hope for a government-run public option to be included in a final reform bill is all but dead.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on "Fox News Sunday." "There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort."

Thus, Conrad said, proponents such as President Obama, who has voiced support for a public option to "keep the insurance companies honest," should temper their expectations.

Conrad's proposal for a health-care co-op program is seen as the likeliest of options that will come from the Finance Committee. He says the regionalized co-op plan would give insurance buyers more choice, stressing that he sees no way a public option would find its way in any final version of legislation.
 
Hmm...interesting. Lots of misinformation about the public option on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, Senator Conrad's co-op plan really is a lame duck and doesn't address many of the core issues facing healthcare.
 
So if the public option is out, the $1 trillion price tag can surely be reduced to $0, right? Or maybe the politicians still have to pay off their cronies so it'll still cost an arm and a leg. Or maybe "no public option" isn't as "private" as it sounds.

Answering these questions will be impossible until the various bills coalesce into one semi-finalized proposal.
 
Still nothing on tort reform....
Doctors are still leaving Medicare in droves from the low reimbursements.
 
This is sounds like good news to me. The public option was one of the few ideas I didn't like about this reform. I don't know much about these co-ops, but I like the fact that they are non-profit and independent of the government.
 
Still nothing on tort reform....

Traditionally a state issue.

womp said:
Doctors are still leaving Medicare in droves from the low reimbursements.

I recently heard someone characterize Medicare as a subsidy, and that's probably a good way to look at it. It should be obvious why private insurers do not want to touch the 65+ age group.
 
If the public option passed I might have had to reassess my position on American government being controlled by special interests. Of course who knows what they would have or will do to it.
 
Apples to oranges, my friend...

I don't see how "white house withdraws support" and "white house withdraws support" are A to O. Definitely different issues with different people willing to vote for them, for sure.

BTW, I still see annoying ads about healthcare "reform" on TV all the time. Anyone else see the one where the "evil grey conservative cars" are trying to block the ambulance from getting to the hospital?
 
The problem with co-op's is they cannot get the same population pool as the public option would and ultimately large enough pool to effectively bargain for insurance pricing for their policy members or keep for-profit private insurance in check to create a competitive market place. The public option provides competition to an otherwise non-competitive dysfunctional market, and actually reduces spending and individual burden or company burden as the health insurance market is the one market in which expanding the population pool of coverage actually reduces costs.

I don't understand how one can (or a party for that matter) claim to be pro-market, fiscally conservative, pro-competition, and pro individual liberty and choice and reconcile that with a health care policy which is anti-market, anti-competition, and anti-choice. And the party which originally broke up the old monopolies at the turn of the century now actively promotes monopolized markets. Maybe one can reconcile the dissonance there when it lines their pockets?

We'll see in the coming months how this ends up, but I'm going to put my chips in that the death of the public option has been greatly exaggerated.
 
Why can't the government provide start up funds for a private, non-profit option? I could see that being a very acceptable compromise for both sides.
 
We'll see in the coming months how this ends up, but I'm going to put my chips in that the death of the public option has been greatly exaggerated.

I'm beginning to think you are correct, and my earlier assessment was hasty.

If nothing else this is legislative theatre par excellence.
 
I'm beginning to think you are correct, and my earlier assessment was hasty.

If nothing else this is legislative theatre par excellence.

Oh trust me, I was thinking the same thing you were on Sunday/Monday - it was dead. For better or worse, whatever side people are on the issue, in terms of political gamesmanship and legislation the administration looked like they blew it [edit: a.k.a how does someone squander a super majority of the public polling for reform and a public option, and a super majority senate over the course of a summer to an indecisive senate and a confused public that now is polling 50/50. similar to how my NY Giants blew a 30 point lead to SF in the 2002 playoffs while playing passive prevent defense]. And they still haven't taken command of the situation, but it seemed in the last few days that they started feeling the pressure from their own party combined with a few missteps by republican leaders saying they won't vote for a bill no matter what it is (even the provisions they included) and that allowed some alternate avenues to open up. While in '93 the Clintons were too private to a fault when designing their bill, and not presenting it to the public until it was a huge esoteric confusion, the Obama administration were too public to a fault and let mob rule on both political aisles push the direction of this ship and allowed blatant misconceptions become accepted 'facts' without explaining themselves or taking a firm position to explain it to the public. Rather they floated along week to week with what the newsbite was on the policy, or which interest group they were dealing with that week (cutting deals with Pharma, AMA, AARP, etc).
 
and let mob rule on both political aisles push the direction of this ship and allowed blatant misconceptions become accepted 'facts' without explaining themselves or taking a firm position to explain it to the public.

I actually think this was inevitable. One of the reasons health care is so intractable to change is that 1.) it's extraordinarily complex, and 2.) the very nature of it attracts a, shall we say vocal minority, to come forth from the woodwork. The coverage of the town halls was nice twist.

For a very informative and entertaining read, try Rick Perlstein's In America, Crazy Is a Pre-Existing Condition
 
Top