Should Obama tell Congress that he won't sign a health care bill without a strong public option?

[Better Believe It]

[BklnDem75]

1. Again? nt

[Inuca]

2. What about some more options

such "he should sign any GOOD bill that comes his way"? The public option is highly desirable, but its absence does not automatically makes a bill worthless. All IMHO of course.

[Cant trust em]

4. Sorry, but that idea is a little too nuanced for DU

We prefer simple truisms.

[Better Believe It]

6. Well, how would you define "good"? People and groups have many different definitions of good.

"Good" is way to vague and and borders on meaningless. For example, wouldn't those who defend and/or represent the private insurance industry consider a bill minus a public option a "good" bill? Of course they would. They'd "prefer" not have it in the legislation.

I think everyone here, including single payer advocates, would describe legislation with a strong public option available for everyone as good and progressive. It's hardly everything we want and need but such a bill I think could represent an incremental step forward, in other words, a good bill.

And I don't believe a bill without public health insurance would be a good bill at all!

[Inuca]

33. In this context

and without going into a lengthy discussion (I am at work :blush:), I would define GOOD as something that Obama and a few congresspeople that I trust considered to be good enough to vote for and sign. Which implicitly means that I do trust Obama. Not to be perfect but to try to do good (that pesky word again) within the constraints of the reality he has been dealt. I know that blind trust is not very smart, and I do not think I blindly trust him or the before mentioned congress people. But I am aware of my limitations, I know that I have way less information than they have, way less time to process the information and turn it into meaningful conclusions, and I am also probably less smart than (some :-)) of them.

Edited because my typing is very lousy.

[jbnow]

20. I agree with you. A bill with a public plan that lacks

mandated safeguards is worse than a bill with no public plan that has those safeguards if there is some kind of price control built in.

The safeguards I'm talking about are some of the minimum standard set for plans on the exchange (and employer plans have to at least meet these. They include things like
No bias on preexisting conditions.
Can't deny anyone, can't charge more or close anyone due to them. Also a limit to how much more you can charge due to age...a ratio between cost of most and least expensive
No lifetime or annual limit on treatment
Limit on maximum annual out of pocket costs for policyholders
It is set pretty high for lower income people, $5000 for individual and $10,000 for family. (Don't know if they get help on that as well as premiums) It might be a hardship it is workable through a payment plan for most of us, it's not a bankruptcy
No copay on certain preventative care or well baby care
Adult children can be covered on parents policy to age 26
All employer plans must at least meet the minimum standards required of plans on the exchange.

Along with the subsidies these are the things that will help millions, save lives, improve health.

A strong public plan could keep prices down...but the one proposed in house is not that strong. An option to buy into medicare would be strong! Wish we had that. But what is being proposed isn't medicare rates or even medicare plus a percentage. They won't set rates, they would negotiate like any insurance company. The whole cost of plan would be fully funded by premiums. Basically it would be a really good nonprofit plan (without CEO salary in the millions like even some nonprofits have)
Like Obama has said...show him something else that can provide competition and keep other plans honest. It's main role is to keep prices down.
If set up like current plans the exchange itself drops prices lower than they are. That is because whatever plan on exchange you join you are part of the big group and rates are set that way. Right now administrative costs included in the premium cost is about 7% for largest companies and jumps to 25% for small business and is even higher for individual policies. Theoretically all buyers on an exchange would get big company rate
I say theoretically because I don't trust Baucus bill or how much sway it will have.
Without some control from a public plan I don't trust how rapidly the rates will inflate.

So how people should vote and if Obama should sign depends on the whole of the bill. It would be ridiculous to veto a good bill that could help millions because of lack of private plan. Just as ridiculous if the safeguards aren't in all the exchange plans. If only the public plan has them then it would get all the people the worst problems and it would spike the plan rates making it not competitive...There would be many more problems with it but this is long post already.
I would hope we get both but without bribes or blackmail the votes just might not be there.

I couldn't vote in this poll. Of course he shouldn't sign any plan he gets. He should sign any good plan

[Cant trust em]

21. That's the kind of detailed thinking that DU needs more of.

Thanks.

[Better Believe It]

26. "this is long post already." Yes it is. Please don't write President Obama's speech!

Keep it short, simple, clear and please drop the Professor lecturing the college graduates persona President Obama.

Just teasing you jbnow.

:)

[Inuca]

34. You brought up most of the

very same points that I tried to bring up in the past in similar discussions, usually without much success. Still the response was much better here than on Kos where I seldom post but I did so a few days ago trying to make a very similar (though way less well written and detailed) point as you did. I was literally told to take my shit elsewhere. I find that kind of reaction really demoralizing. IMHO it's no better than the troglodytes screaming at town halls that we have been regaled with this past August.

[Cant trust em]

41. Don't let other people's myopia get you down. nt

[Inuca]

42. Thanks :-) n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. "but its absence does not automatically makes a bill worthless."

Yes it does. If there is not - at least - a true public option, then there is no reform, only further enabling of the insurance corporation criminals, and more than likely an even worse situation, such as national RomneyCare.

If there's no public option in the bill, Obama should veto it and continue to do so until they get it right. Because the minute he signs a shit bill, he takes ownership of the FAIL.

[Inuca]

36. What about

an idea taht I heard mentioned, though very little: have a TIGHTLY REGULATED private insurance system, something akin to how utility companies operate? My understanding is that this is what the Dutch have, and it's considered a pretty good system, on par with other European countries.

I am not saying that this is better that the public option, I don't know if it is. All I am saying is that appealing as the public option may be, MAYBE it is not the only way to achieve a "fair & balanced" (apologies, but it really seems to apply to what I am trying to say) system.

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. Regulations are no longer enough.

FDR regulated the criminals and it worked. Until Reagan, Poppy, Clinton, and the Chimp, systematically destroyed all of it. So regulation is not the answer, since it's only as good as who is in power at the moment.

Why it works in the other countries is that it's written into the law that the insurance companies WILL NOT BE FOR PROFIT. They're private entities, but there is tight government oversight over everything they do.

As for utility companies.... uhhhh, ENRON?? That's a text book example of why energy companies of any kind should never be privatized. Exxon would be another. But nationalizing energy... that's a whole other thread right there.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

3. If the bill coming Barack's way does not have a public option,

it ain't a good bill!

K&R

[JTFrog]

5. He has. It's been posted here in video and print. Are you still waiting on the birth certificate?

Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

@4:21 on the video: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

[DevonRex]

7. Only the Vault Copy will do, you know.

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

8. You're wrong again. President Obama hasn't told Congress that unless you've read .....

an advance copy of President Obama's address to Congress which he hasn't written yet!

The question was: "Should Obama tell Congress that he won't sign a health care bill without a strong public option?"

Do you think he should or should not make that point when he addresses Congress next Wednesday?

Yes or no.

The nation needs a final and definitive answer from President Obama on this matter because he's made different and conflicting comments regarding the public option over the past few months.

I can't think of a better time or opportunity for President Obama to make his final position crystal clear when he addresses Congress and the nation next week on healthcare. And that would be good time for him to lay out his position on the so-called trigger mechanism, co-ops and other gimmicks designed to kill a strong public insurance option.

Don't you agree?

[JTFrog]

9. I'll take that as a yes....

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

12. You voted yes! Good! So did I. So we agree.

I'm glad that you think Obama should make it clear he won't sign any bill without a strong public option when he addresses Congress next week.

You could have just said that from the very beginning.

[JTFrog]

15. You will spin anything won't you?

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

19. Yes. He. Will.

:evilgrin:

[Better Believe It]

24. So you voted no and think that President Obama should sign anything Congress passes?

You seem to be having difficulty stating your position clearly or maybe you prefer writing in code.

Well, if you've flipped from a Yes to a No vote that's unfortunate.

Sad to see that a few people are willing to accept anything that might be passed by Congress so long as it's pitched and spun as "health care reform".

[JTFrog]

29. You are so clueless...

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

32. A simple yes or no would be fine minus the personal attacks.

Can you do that?

[JTFrog]

39. Simply NOT posting the M$M's daily negative spin would be fine too.

Can you do that?

[debbierlus]

10. Very interesting - most people feel Obama should demand public option, yet unrecommended

This makes NO sense.

[Jennicut]

11. Its not the question, is the er..um...well you figure it out

[DevonRex]

13. That's asking too much.

:rofl: and :hi:

[Jennicut]

16. Hey!

:hi:
Some people get what I am saying, right?

[DevonRex]

17. We sure do. And as usual, you're spot on. :) nt

[harun]

14. How would you know how many unrec's there are?

[Cant trust em]

18. I can't really give an answer until I see the final product. nt

[DevonRex]

22. How very reasonable of you!

You made me smile. :hi:

[Cant trust em]

23. awww....

That's a nice way to start a morning.

[Better Believe It]

27. Tough question? It's not for progressives who understand the need for a public option.

Watch the Bill Moyers interview (among many other things) on Bill Maher's show and you'll understand.

I don't want a few crumbs from the loaf, I want the loaf1

Accepting crumbs means you will kill real universal health care legislation and will guarantee domination by the private health insurance industry, the drug cartel and the for-profit health care industry for at least another generation.

[Cant trust em]

28. Your argument is not new to me. The need for the public option is not what we're arguing about.

If Obama chooses to sign the bill or not, that is going to be the only health care bill we'll see for the remainder of his presidency.

[Better Believe It]

30. That's exactly what we're discussing and what the poll is all about.

I suppose you can change the subject if you want, but the bottom line question is should President Obama sign a bill that doesn't include a strong public option. That's the bottom line and make or break point for most liberals/progressives/leftists.

[Cant trust em]

31. The bottom line should be improvement of the health care system...

Not just the existence of the public option. Are there ways to improve the health care system without the public option? I'd say so.

What about this from up thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8623325#8623460

Sorry, but I don't believe in the simplicity of your poll.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Considering I don't whip votes in my spare time, I can't make that call

If he did it would certainly increase the odds of a public option passing. If the odds are good enough then he should do it. If they aren't good enough then he should not.

[Chester Berthum]

37. Nest Wednedsday Night, the President should call out the Republican Assholes.....

...INCLUDING Baucus & Lieberman!

[Vidar]

40. Yes, but he won't.

[Honeycombe8]

43. Yes, But they wouldn't believe him. nt