A funny thing about the "debate" on the Public Option - it died.

[grantcart]

Debate about the Public Option - there isn't any.


Here is what the principal opponents to it are saying:

Senator Conrad

"Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option," Conrad said. "There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort."

Senator Baucus

"I'm not sure if public option is going to survive, frankly," Baucus told a crowd in Missoula today, saying a co-op system is much more likely.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) confirmed this past week that he personally supports a public option for insurance coverage, even as the committee he heads is poised to produce health care legislation that lacks a government-administered plan.

Senator Enzi

"As I've said from the beginning, a government-run option is not an option. I voted against the Democrat plan in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last month and would do so again," Enzi said

Senator Landrieu

"I'm not open to it. I'm not open to a public option," Landrieu told the Huffington Post early Tuesday afternoon. "However, I will remain open to a compromise, a full compromise. Public option is not something that I support. I don't think it's the right way to go."

Senator Bayh

BAYH: Well, it’s a debate we need to have, Chris. And I’m agnostic on that as we sit here this morning.

There simply is no debate against the Public Option.

Those that haven't endorsed it simply say that they are aginst it, without a rational, or say that there are not enough votes to get it passed.

Even Snowe's trigger assumes that the Public Option is a good remedy but may "not be needed".

The opposition to the Public Option doesn't even bother trying to argue against it.

Debate against the Public Option - just angry people with signs - there is no public debate against it.

[create.peace]

1. I don't want public option, I want single payer, but all i hear is PO, any more!nt

[grantcart]

6. Once established there will be huge demand for the Public Option

and it will instruct people on what single payer really is.


Also with the Kucinich ammendment states can go single payer - just like Canada where they went to single payer province by province.


The idea that we can throw a switch and go single payer all at one time is simply unrealistic - the Public Option was designed by advocates of single payer to create a gateway option to single payer.

[create.peace]

8. i hope you are right!nt

[grantcart]

13. Since when have I ever been wron . . . .never mind

[dflprincess]

16. It was/is not unrealistic to think that Medicare can be expanded to include

more people over a period of time until all of us are covered by it.

That could probably be done more quickly than the public option outlined in HR3200 that won't cover anyone until 2013.

[ProSense]

2. Actually, the trigger assumes that the insurance companies can be trusted.

Silly assumption.

[uponit7771]

4. IMHO if rescission and precondition discrimination are outlawed we'll NEED the PubOption cause HCI's

...will most likely go bankrupt, their margins will be ripped to shreds

[dflprincess]

15. Not any sillier than that line we've been handed about a public option

"keeping them honest".

Obama admits they're crooked, Pelosi has called them immoral yet they're all willing to sell us out to protect the for profit insurance companies.

[uponit7771]

3. Good point!!! K&R

[windoe]

5. No wonder everyone is confused, public relations is abysmal.

At the very least, to calm down the rage on the right, easy to understand talking points would be simple to write, on both sides. An informed populace can then make an educated decision!!

It is very disappointing to witness the way this whole debate is being handled. Americans are having to make life and death decisions for God's sake, and the rage is just a secondary emotion to people who are terrified of watching each other lose everything.

If people can be whipped into a chaotic frenzy, they can just as easily be calmed with information designed for whatever level of understanding they have. There is gross negligence here.

edited for better clarity (see even I can do that!)

[flpoljunkie]

7. If someone can find a way to 'keep the insurance companies honest' and bend the cost curve without

a public option, then I am all for it. It would take heavy regulation of the insurance companies--including their medical loss ratio. Right now they spend slightly more than 80 cents of every dollar paying claims. It was 95 cents back in the early 90's when the Clintons tried to reform health care.

Why has this happened? The increasing need to show a profit for their investors.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

Still waiting for the CBO to score the single payer plans.

[grantcart]

10. There is no other way.

I believe that the actual payment for medical reimbursement is much lower than 80% - that figures includes the cost of reviewing and administering the payments.

I believe that the actual percentage for actual reimbursement is closer to 65%.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Some say the medical loss ratio is between 70 and 80 cents. You may be right.

Although, you think former Cigna communications director Wendell Potter would know.

[grantcart]

12. it may be a question about how much general overhead is 'absorbed'

In any case we know the bottom line cost -100% more of the GNP is spent on less care in the US than other developed countries.

[Laelth]

9. Interesting observation. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[waiting for hope]

14. I see two consevadems in there

and three of the top five receivers of insurance industry donations .... oh why am I not surprised?