Straight up, what do you think...

[Ken Burch]

Would a healthcare bill WITHOUT a public option be change in any meaningful sense?

[TheKentuckian]

1. Meaningful adjustments can be made through regulation but they would be well short

of fixing anything.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. The math and terminology is getting so fuzzy

All these committees with different versions of health-care reform and how to pay for it...


I have no fucking clue at this point.


Shit. It has been 23 years since the last time the IRC was overhauled.

[quaker bill]

3. Change? yes

meaningful? perhaps

good enough? no

[4lbs]

4. Lack of a public option doesn't prevent the insurance companies from colluding and raising

everybody's premiums, together.

The 'compromise' of making insurance companies insure people with pre-existing conditions and not allowing them to charge them more than people that aren't stricken with pre-existing conditions seems nice on the surface.

However, it leaves open the loophole that the insurance company could simply increase EVERYONE's premium, and not violate the compromise. People with pre-existing conditions would still not be paying more than others, because they all would be paying the same much higher rate.

A public option would prevent this from happening as people would then move to the cheaper public option instead.

Without the public option to keep rates and costs in check, there is little to make the insurance industry do such.

[Orsino]

5. If a lot more people are able to afford coverage, that would be meaningful. n/t