Fridays Child
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-10-09 09:47 PM
Original message |
Is Congresswoman Giffords muddying the health care reform water... |
|
...or do I misunderstand the definition of the term "public option?" From a canned letter out of her office, is this excerpt: "I support the idea of allowing people to choose from a menu of competitively priced options, also known as a public option."
I thought that the public option was a single payer/universal health care option that's separate from the so-called "competitively priced options," which are essentially no different than the major insurance company plans that currently rip us off. Can someone please help me out here?
|
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-10-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
1. No, the public option had nothing to do with single payer as you thought |
|
Single means...well, single. As long as other insurers cover the same thing, its not single payer.
But, the reality is, the language they used was OPTION. Option can mean anything. So in the end, the public-option-or-nothingers are getting an option, but it just mightnot be what they envisioned. Bait and switch. Next time, ask better questions and demand better answers.
|
Fridays Child
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-10-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. This was in an update sent to her email list, not part of a response to an inquiry by me. |
|
But what I'm trying to grasp is whether or not the term "public option" means coverage similar to the UK's National Health Service model, for example. Because, if it does mean that, either she misunderstands the issue or she's deliberately misinterpreting "public option." And neither of those two possibilities are acceptable.
|
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-10-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. It doesnt actually mean anything |
|
Its a new fabricated term. Everyone thought it might mean a public insurance entity that anyone could enroll in, so they got behind it. It really is ambiguous and could fairly be applied to anything run or oversighted by the government. Sad but true really. Since the start of this debate, the Democrats wont draw any lines in the sand, not even insofar as language.
|
Fridays Child
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-10-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
I am so naive to have ever thought that politics as usual would become history once my party was back in control. I guess, in that rarefied atmosphere of the Hill, there are no Ds or Rs--only $s.
|
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-10-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. It still might turn out to be better than status quo |
|
It will never make health care affordable on its own, but it may make it a bit better if all the cards fall into place. It could also be worthless. Who knows.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:21 AM
Response to Original message |