Should progressives kill health-insurance reform if there is no public option?

[kentuck]

They have the power. Would it be wise? Would it be better for true reform down the road? Or should they take whatever incremental reform that might be proposed? (Such as computerized record keeping)

Also, would it be helpful for the Democratic Party to show that the progressives do have the power to make or break any bill that comes up, not just health care reform?

Is this something the progressives in Congress should be seriously discussing?

[villager]

1. it's hard to imagine that if they don't, anything even remotely "progressive" will ever come out

...of Congress again.

Until the Democratic party is replaced by an actual progressive/liberal one, in some far future...

[joeycola]

2. yes.

[valerief]

3. Without a public option it's just more money shoveled to insurance companies and

zip to patients. It's more of the same only the insurance companies get more money. Those pre-existing condition and lose-your-job clauses? They'll still take your premium and still reject your claims.

The only real reform is Medicare for All.

[rucky]

4. Without a public option, it won't be reform.

It'll be a racket.

[Bandit]

5. Absolutely.....

It really doesn't have to be signed intl law in 2009. There can be a real Reform Bill signed into Law in 2010 even with a Campaign going on, maybe especially with a Campaign going on.

[Curtland1015]

6. It really all comes down to what is on the bill.

There can be some real, meaningful reforms that don't include a public option.

Lowered drug costs, forcing insurance companies to pay for patients with pre-existing conditions, trying to force "administrative costs" down... these kinds of things can save a LOT of lives. It would be pretty crass to refuse making these kinds of things a reality.

Of course there are lots of "ifs" in the above scenario. If these things only make it into a bill in a half assed sort of way, or in a way that ends up costing us MORE, then there is little reason to pass such a thing.

But if included, and included the RIGHT WAY, I think it would be wrong to turn these down in favor of no change at all. It would be a bitter pill to swallow with no public option, however.

[kentuck]

9. Even if they add pre-existing conditions to coverage...?

What's to keep them from raising premiums to make up the difference and keep their profit margin?

[Curtland1015]

12. Not much, unless there is a very smart bill written up.

Which is what I was trying to say, I suppose. There can be very real and smart steps in the right direction, even without a public option. But they have to be set up in the right way.

Either way, I'd MUCH rather have the public option, but a very (VERY, VERY) well written bill could still be worth passing without it.

[harun]

7. They have already said they will, and they WILL.

[RKP5637]

8. No public option will probably = same old stuff.

Good ideas start off and often they end up watered down. If we can't get a public option with a majority in congress and the presidency, then it will probably be a long long time before we get real health care reform. More and more each day the US becomes run by corporations than the majority of the citizens, so, good ideas get destroyed in the name of profit and greed. I think it's time to stand up for what we want and need!

[Laelth]

22. Welcome to DU.

:dem:

-Laelth

[RKP5637]

26. Thanks!

[laughingliberal]

10. As much as I hate it

I think a bill without the real teeth to force premium rates down and stop the gaming of the system by insurance companies should be voted down. A strong public option (one seeded with enough money to get up and running that a lot of people would buy into quickly) is the best way to insure restraints on the insurance companies. Without that there needs to be some ironclad insurance regulation.

[msongs]

11. people who stand for nothing will fall for anything nt

[Tim01]

13. I have written my reps and told them as much.

But I don't believe that is what is going to happen. I think there are going to be lots and lots of layers of "good enough", and I think things might actually end up worse than they are now.
I actually think some people might take whatever they get and call it "good" just to save face politically.
In addition to a whole shitload of political capitol down the drain.

I know I am a pessimist, I hope everybody who disagrees with me gets the opportunity to laugh in my face.

[avaistheone1]

14. Yes.

[TransitJohn]

15. Yes.

n/t

[MadHound]

16. Yes, because without the public option you are creating legislation that will do more harm than good

You will be handing the insurance industry a mandated monopoly with no recourse for the poor. We have kicked this can down the road long enough, and frankly I don't want to wait another twenty years or more for the Dems to get the fortitude to try again.

Furthermore it is past time that the Democratic party can only ignore liberals and progressives for so long. We've been the "good soldiers" for years and decades, far too long. It is time that the left got thrown a bone.

If there is no public option, and if progressive Congressional Dems don't stop this bill, I and millions of others of liberals will leave this party for other Greener pastures, or simply give up and let this country go to hell.

That's how important this bill is, and Obama and the Congressional Dems had better not fuck it up.

[Laelth]

25. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[ShortnFiery]

37. Yes! This view needs to be reiterated ... Make Obama know that we DEMAND change ...

no more "good soldier" AFTER the elections as the "corporate moderates" financially kick us in the teeth. Enough! :grr:

Madhound posts:

"If there is no public option, and if progressive Congressional Dems don't stop this bill, I and millions of others of liberals will leave this party for other Greener pastures, or simply give up and let this country go to hell.

That's how important this bill is, and Obama and the Congressional Dems had better not fuck it up." :thumbsup:

[Individualist]

17. Yes

[kentuck]

18. I think the ultimate question must be:

Will we be better off with the bill proposed? If the insurance companies agree to cover pre-existing conditions but are permitted to raise the premiums on everyone else, so they can keep their high profits, would that be a good bill?? What do you think?

[WyLoochka]

38. No it wouldn't be a good bill

If the majority of the Dem Party and the admin can not find anything to use to coax, bribe or beat the likes of Conrad, Nelson, Landriue, Lincoln et al into submitting to the will of the vast majority of the rest of us - then Obama should call the whole thing off in his speech.

He could recover our good will and have the support, at least from us, to rebuild and wage the battle another time. I loathe saying we should wait longer, but a bad bill would be worse than no bill.

People would obviously hate the results of a bad bill which utterly failed to take on the insurance companies in any real, observable competitive way, becaus it would tie them up in immoral mandates, redtape and ever more skyrocketing, ruinous costs. And the Dems would be blamed forever.

[ShortnFiery]

39. It doesn't MATTER if they cover pre-existing conditions if the premiums are so damn

high you can NOT afford to pay for insurance. :(

[juno jones]

19. Yes! n/t

[Laelth]

20. Absolutely. On this (and many other things) Bill Moyers was right.

Half a loaf does not feed the crowd.

:dem:

-Laelth

[nevergiveup]

21. If there are meaningful things in the bill

that will help those who are struggling today it would be insensitive and selfish to kill the bill and most progressives will not go there regardless of what they are saying today. Sometimes the "all or nothing" approach is smart and other times it is dumb. If the bill would get our foot in the door as a first step in pursuit of universal health care then it would be foolish not to take the step. At this point it is all speculation. We have to wait and see what is in the bill.

[kentuck]

24. I think what we must be careful about is...

the frog in the slow boiling water. How much more do we give the insurance companies? What may appear to be something beneficial for a few may do harm to the many?

[nevergiveup]

30. If what you say in your last sentence

becomes true then I would agree with you. I guess I am just more optimistic than most around here.

[jefferson_dem]

51. Ah...reason.

Refreshing.

Thanks for that.

[man4allcats]

23. I really doubt the public option, especially the anemic versions of that proposal

currently under debate in Congress, is the solution to health care reform. For those who wish to know more, there is an excellent discussion of the details of the public option here. I am personally convinced that single payer is the only viable approach. In my opinion, we have one chance to get health care reform right, and it goes by the name of H. R. 676. I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Robert Woolard of Canadian Doctors for Medicare who recently stated that for the United States to try to achieve health care reform incrementally; i.e., by means other than single payer, is like trying to "cross a chasm in two steps." (referenced statement begins at the start of minute 5 in the video)

[SpankMe]

27. Yes. n/t

[bvar22]

28. YES!!! ....rec up to +5

I STAND with the Progressive Caucus, and pray they hold the line.

[jtrockville]

29. Yes. Mostly because we need health CARE reform, not INSURANCE reform

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. Yes, as they should kill any corporatist bill masquerading as "reform"

The worst enemy of reform is phony "reform".

[laughingliberal]

32. If I thought the bill was a step in the right direction

I would support it. But, without the public option, it is a step in the wrong direction. It will be another burden on the working and middle classes-handing us over, nicely gift wrapped, to the same companies who have created this crisis. I can't tell you how much I hate the idea that the insurance companies will profit wildly while forcing more working people into poverty.

[jgraz]

33. Yes, but they won't

Ask your progressive rep if they'll vote against the bill after it comes out of conference. I suspect you'll get a lot of hand waving and foot shuffling.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. Good point. Progressives to commit to voting down a FINAL, post-conference bill that lacks a public

...option.

[ShortnFiery]

34. YES! No Public option, No Bill! eom

[jannyk]

35. Yes! nt

[jefferson_dem]

40. Of course not.

Doesn't surprise me that some are recommending torpedoing the whole reform effort if the public option isn't included.

[kentuck]

41. How do we know if it's "reform"?

Or just a windfall for the insurance companies and higher premiums for everyone else?

[jefferson_dem]

49. It depends on the actual provisions in the bill.

Right? We'll know shortly.

I'm expecting it to include a trigger for the public option if certain benchmarks aren't reached. Again, that won't satisfy some who say "half a loaf" still sucks. I realize how important it is to set the wheels of change in motion NOW, especially on a issue as huge and treacherous as healthcare reform. If not now, then when? The environment sure as hell won't be any more reform-friendly after 2010..

[Bonn1997]

75. It's pretty clear that the only way to get to 60 votes is to ensure that it's not real reform. If

the President had been powerful public option advocate from the beginning, we might be in a different position though.

[GrantDem]

42. Without a Public Option it is not reform.

[Neecy]

43. Maybe

If there's a public mandate without a public option then yes, kill it.

The only way this would fly is to get rid of the mandate. That's a deal-breaker.

[patrice]

44. They should kill it if there is no STRONG Public Option. nt

[nashville_brook]

45. after reading Matt Taibbi's article Sick and Wrong -- I say YES, it's our responsibility to stop it.

[alittlelark]

46. Yes.

[Blue_In_AK]

47. Yes.

[ElboRuum]

48. That depends.

If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs succeed in bearing the beast with no teeth, I believe that would serve as ratification for the "smaller government" viewpoint... unless they are perceived as obstructionist. I believe that they would be, so killing the bill might be the break from bipartisanship that I think we all agree needs to happen if anything of value is going to get done.

On the other hand, if this is painted as an Obama/Dem failure, it will embolden the Republican base and cast doubt on Obama's credibility to get things done. This is a danger because there is a vehement contingent in this country who would be gleeful to see him fail, period.

Sorry to non-answer your question, but I don't honestly know what the right move is. However, I do believe that any push in the direction of reform could be beneficial in the longer term even if in the shorter term it won't seem like much. Why? Because up until this point, insurance companies have been essentially unassailable from a regulatory standpoint, and any reform at all would be a foothold into further action. In other words, a precedent will have been set. It would be much easier to get things done if we have actual legislation signifying the fact that the people of this country want this industry brought to heel.

Hopefully that's a better answer than my initial non-answer.

[TorchTheWitch]

50. they fucking BETTER!

Without a ROBUST public option it's nothing but a Repuke dream give-away to health insurance companies that NO Dem should approve - progressive, blue dog or otherwise.

[bluesmail]

52. The way I see it, they (Capitalists, HC Industry, Corporations,

esp) have so much money and money is power. Money buys a think tank. They know what's going to happen before it does. Money = power. Power to buy a One World Government. IMO that's been the goal for ages.

[t0dd]

53. yes. nt.

[Mojambo]

54. Yes. n/t

[Juche]

55. No

A public option is deeply important for economic and moral reasons. However if we can get health reform w/o pre existing conditions, lifetime limits and that has a strong patients bill of rights, regulation, cost controls and subsidies for the poor we should take it.

[philly_bob]

56. Am undecided. We definitely should be discussing pros & cons.

If the only improvement is computerized record-keeping -- hell no.

If the improvement is to (1) require pre-existing condition coverage, (2) to make treatment denial by health insurance companies much, much harder, and (3) to dramatically reduce pool of uninsured, I'll consider being a good Democratic soldier.

Still, to be honest, without single-payer, we can't cut costs enough to make a financial difference. So we'd just be kicking the can down the road a little for Obama's next term or a more progressive Democrat.

[Left coast liberal]

57. Yes, absolutely.

[booley]

58. Well capitulation does not seem to have worked

First I object to the framing.

Without at least a public option this isn't really good health care reform.

And last I heard that was what we wanted.

So how could progressives have killed something that was made still born by conservatives?

Secondly, the PO IS the compromise. So how is giving everything away in the hope that the other side will give in to something (regardless of how small) a good strategy?

I mean, sheesh, should we give away Poland next?

[kath]

59. Just say NO to any non-reform "reform".

AFAIK, there has not been any bill that has anything remotely approaching a STRONG public option in it.

The "10 million people in the public option by 2019" thing is a piece of shit - it is NOT real reform.

[scentopine]

60. yes, yes, yes, - it will be a disaster

The same SOBs who brought you S&L reform disaster, energy market reform disaster, investment banking reform disaster, and the free market bullshit that Iraq war would pay for and justify the invasion disaster, are EXACTLY the same democrats and republicans designing heath care "reform". Some of us warned and cautioned about corporate influence in Washington over each of these Wall Street sweetheart deals and the concerns now are exactly the same as they were back then. Its history repeating over and over.

Max Baucus negotiating health reform? Are you fucking joking? Its like Exxon meeting with Cheney over Iraq war plans and energy policy!

We will all suffer from our placid acceptance that Obama can do no wrong even when he is behaving like a mild mannered republican which wouldn't be so bad if the previous 8 years or so didn't need a major amount of undoing. We need more regulation not less.

Damn. As a nation we refuse to learn from our mistakes.

[usregimechange]

61. No, this can be done in phases

[scentopine]

68. here's how I think the phases will go with history as my guide

and approx. time line

Phase I - mandatory insurance, pre-existing clauses, 50% coverage

two years

Phase II - costs escalate, CEO salaries explode based on govt. subsidies

two years

Phase III - govt goes deep in debt, public care is far worse off

two years

Phase IV - people can no longer pay outrageous premiums and jdeductibles, health market collapses, trillion dollar bailout

one month

Phase V - we'll blame it on republicans when it was clearly us democrats who were responsible

one year

Phase VI -republicans regain control, toss it out and we are back to zero, democrats don't get back into office for 12 years or more.

Principal architects of bill are all working for health insurance companies and offered free health care as part of compensation. Rest retire multi-millionaires.

[KoKo]

62. yes...and I'm sad to say that. But, at some point Democrats need to take a stand

to fight for a real movement and not caving into Repugs time after time.

Some will say "half a loaf" will help millions get health insurance who would be denied it. I say, that congress can do legislation ON THEIR OWN to stop Insurance Companies from denying folks with pre-existing conditions to be denied health insurance and they can force insurance companies by legislating changes about "co-pays" and "portability." They can even force companies through clever legislation to extend insurance to needy families by expanding Medicaid through a "back door." They managed to get S-Chip through to cover the neediest of children.

What Obama's deals with Insurance Companies will do will be a massive give away to the worst of the worst and we won't know what's in the bill until after it's passed when the dreaded "Conference Committee" gets through putting their restrictions and perks to the Insurance Companies in there.

We are better off letting it go down...and Congress to make the changes I said above and then fight like hell for Medicare for All...Single Payer.

Yeah...I know this is a downer for most DU'ers who will think I'm a troll for saying this. But, Obama/Rahm botched it all. I don't trust anything they would pass given the "Tea Party Antics" and rest by the Repugs who will shred the bill so bad that it will come back on Obama/Rahm for the 2010 Election.

Let it go down now. If he's serious he can bring it back early next year.

[WeDidIt]

63. Don't let the barely tolerable be the enemy of the completely shitty

Kill any bill without a public option.

The blue dogs have more to lose if there is no health care reform than the progressives do.

[Sebastian Doyle]

64. False reform is WORSE than the status quo

Especially the RomneyHillaryCare mandatory corporatism kind.

[bobbolink]

65. Are there any reasons for NOT killing a bad bill?

Yes, it would be politically charged.

Yes, it would confuse the general public.

However, Obama has created this mess by his distancing himself, and not forging ahead with what he promised voters.

If he suffers politcally from progressives killing a bad bill, that would be an unfortunate, but logical outcome of his mistake.

[David Zephyr]

66. Yes.

Let Obama get 100 votes in the House from the GOP.

[bemildred]

67. Oh hell yes.

Hellth care deform is not what we need more of.

[andym]

69. If they make insurance inclusive, prevent rejection of claims and cap premiums

then it could be worth it. Capping premiums for a basic plan that covers everything Medicare covers would work, if the cap was based on Medicare rates.

[Stand and Fight]

70. Yes. A line must be drawn in the sand.

When the hell are Democrats in Congress going to realize their not having a polite disagreement with friends? This is god-damn war -- pure and simple. As long as the Democrats believe that they can reason with these inhumane bastards, they will continue to be beaten by the inhumane bastards.

[gleaner]

71. Yes it is .....

If we can't get a public option, really we are being offered nothing. If anything it will get worse, if that is possible. There will be no competition with the health insurance companies, no real reform, no oversight.

We let single payer pass. But if we elected Obama on the strength of his promise to give us a health care bill with teeth, then this is not the way. He seems to have more respect for the Republicans than for the Progressives and other Democrats who helped him get elected. I, for one, am so very sick of a small minority of the population, the Freepers, acting like they own this country outright and thinking that if they make enough noise no one will object. Obama is underlining this perception of theirs.

We need to fight, we have strength and we should show it, or it will be more of the same and all downhill from here. The Progressives in Congress need to discuss this and fight for us or we will be in the midst of a majority standing all alone against the Bush policies favored by the minority just like we were when Bush was in office. And while we're at it, how about the wars and the torture? Do the wars go on forever and the torture go on being acceptable? The Progressives should be discussing those issues as well.

[B Calm]

72. The time has come for real health care reform! Also time to

regain what the democratic party stands for. For way too long the democratic conservatives have had their damn way!

[Lorax7844]

73. yep!

[B Calm]

74. No public option kill it, and turn around and pass real campaign

finance reform. Then we could get what's really needed SINGLE PAYER!

[depakid]

76. How about since progressives are the vast majority we step up

And start setting the agenda?

In case no one's been paying attention these last months...years... we get blamed and beat on no matter what.

Might as well take the lumps while standing up for something positive.

[WyoHiker]

77. Yes. Without a Public Option, it's already dead.

[JVS]

78. Absolutely.