So if only a fraction are eligible, is it really a PUBLIC option?

[Doctor_J]

Paraphrasing Hartmann caller.

What an excellent question

Edit subject line to re-focus on the real question

[aquart]

1. No. It is NOT.

[DrDan]

2. not an "option" - that is for sure . . .

[latebloomer]

3. No,

and neither is it an OPTION, for most of us.

[Oregone]

4. Its meant to cover segments of the population that are not profitable to privately insure

Its actually a gift for the private insurers (who will not compete for this segment). Rather than having to manipulate their rates so that everyone can afford to buy in (subsidy or not), this exists as a convenient place to dump the non-profitable masses

[ashling]

Exactly

it is not public and it is not an option

[inna]

45. exactly.

thanks for the clarity on that, it's rare around here.

[WI_DEM]

5. Obama said last night that studies showed that only 5% of population would go for public option.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. I think there's a bit of hedging built into that -

only 5% would INITIALLY go for the public option. People who have insurance are not likely to change the devil they know for one they don't. As time passes, and people come to understand that the public option is not what the repubs say it is, they will become more and more willing to abandon their high co-pay/high deductible private plan for a cheaper, more rational public plan.

At least that's how I see it.

[Blasphemer]

29. As long as they have the option to abandon said coverage in favor of the PO, I'm all for it

Even if the initial enrollment is low. If they are trapped in employer chosen coverage because of income guidelines in the package, then that's problematic.

[robinlynne]

37. I would RUN to a public option, as would everyone I know.

[dana_b]

65. then we should all apply for it anyway

even if we know that we won't be accepted BUT we want to make the point that we really want a public option for everyone, then we should all apply and bust their expectations that only 5% would apply for it.

[damntexdem]

48. Yes, not that only 5% would be eligible.

Of course, it all depends on what gets into a bill. A public option needs to be available to all, whatever percentage choose it. I might not opt for it, but I want the choice.

[yurbud]

6. Only 5%? Obama made it sound like it would be a choice open to anyone.

[Oregone]

12. He said for those who do not currently have insurance...

(45 million of those)

And there will probably be an income cap (or even employment criteria) in the firewall to weed that down further.

[yurbud]

35. If you leave you're current plan, that would probably be okay too

I think he's still trying to undersell it so the right will have less to bitch about and the MSM will be embarrassed about repeating the GOP talking points since they will be more vapid and baseless than usual.

If he gets the public option on the board in any form, it's game over for private insurance in the long run.

[Oregone]

40. "If he gets the public option on the board in any form, it's game over for private insurance"

Sorry, but this is fantasy.

When people ask: "Why don't they do single-payer", its because too many people, who are bought and owned, would oppose it to protect their donors.

So why would these bought and owned people vote for something that will transition to single-payer? Its like you are assuming they are stupid or something.

It is what it is. This isn't chess. Its political capitulation.

[Lex]

7. Hell no.

nt

[KittyWampus]

8. Yes, and it's a start headed in the right direction.

[berni_mccoy]

9. Another Falsehood. The CBO Estimates only 5% would enroll

Not that 5% would only be eligible.

[4lbs]

16. Sorry, the "jump to conclusions" people have spoken from the death panel. (n/t)

.

[Doctor_J]

18. Nonsense.

The President said it will be available for those who can't afford or can't get private insurance. If it is a real public option, enrollment will be 60% or more.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Did you read the transcript of Obama's speech? He's QUOTING the CBO.

[johnaries]

64. Actually, he's stating a personal opinion based on CBO info.

And the point is that he was not talking about eligibility, but actual enrollment of those who choose the PO over other options. Therefore, more would be eligible but would choose other plans for whatever reason.

[Dawgs]

24. Wrong!! Obama was referring to the CBO estimates.

You said that only 5% are eligible. You are wrong. Can't talk your way out of now.

[Doctor_J]

28. I was quoting a caller to Hartmann. But the question remains, is everyone eligible?

If not, is it a public option?

[Dawgs]

30. Nice try, but you said the caller's question was an excellent one.

If you want to argue your other point then fine, but don't try to pretend that you didn't agree with the lie that only 5% are eligible.

[Blasphemer]

34. That is the crux of it

If there is a mandate but I can choose at any time to opt for the public option, then it's the real deal.

[johnaries]

63. Well, what do you know? You're right!

In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

He didn't say only 5% would be eligible. He said "he believes" only 5% would "sign up" for it. Big difference. Basically he's saying that many more would be eligible but would choose other options. And isn't that the point of the PO, to make private companies have to compete so that they would have to offer more attractive plans than the PO in order to attract customers?

The Market has it's faults, but if it is properly regulated it does have some good points, too. And that is what this plan is all about, regulating the Health Insurance Market so that it benefits everyone. Is it possible? We'll have to see. Perhaps it is not possible and will pave the way to single-payer. Perhaps it will actually work. But we'll never know unless we try. And it does address the most pressing issues.

edit to add link.

[sandnsea]

10. That's not what Obama said

Why are people doing this? This is as bad as death panels.

[KittyWampus]

13. Why? Cause some fraction of these people are trolls & a larger percentage are Reactionary Screamers

[sharp_stick]

56. And none of them will listen to the actual debate.

it's become it's own form of group-flagellation. They have formed a little clique and will confirm their worst fears to each other over and over again even though it's all a bunch of crap.

I think the key is to stop clearing out my ignore list every few months. Within a couple of weeks the same idiots are populating it and a lot of them are posting in threads like this.

[Johonny]

11. depends

How the market trends in the future. More and more Americans may eventually fall into the public option eligibility as time moves on. Once created the hope is that it will slowly expand to include more and more people. Although that was the hope of medicare too.

[TexasObserver]

14. It's The Hobo's Tale.

From the Depression, the story of a hobo who had a dog. They were both hungry and out of food. So the hobo cut the dog's tail off, skinned it, and cooked it into a stew. He ate all the meat off the bones and then threw the bones to the hungry dog.

As that other guy said, those who have ears let them hear.

[justinaforjustice]

15. No, It is a Sham Option. Medicare For All. n/t

[IRemember]

17. it doesnt matter! Obama nailed it! What a great speech! Wooosh!

:eyes:

[Dawgs]

21. Uh, you know that "only 5% are eligible" is a lie or ignorance, right?

:eyes:

[Doctor_J]

23. So, everyone is eligible?

If not, is it a public option?

[Dawgs]

27. Never said that. But, the statement that only 5% are eligible is a lie.

President Obama was referencing the CBO estimates. He never said that only 5% are eligible.

[sabrina 1]

46. Only 5% will be interested.

according to calculations. So, why would that be the case? If everyone who is currently not insured can choose it, then it's great. But if that were the case, why would mandated insurance for them, be necessary? Some information is missing don't you think?

[sandnsea]

59. Everyone is eligible unless they have employer provided insurance

Do you think anyone will want to quit their employer insurance to pay 5 times as much for something else?

[Doctor_J]

69. The PO will be 5 times as much as what I already pay?

NO ONE will take it then. So it is not really competition. Also, since private insurance takes 20% overhad, including huge salaries to execs, how could a public plan cost 5 times as much?

[sharp_stick]

26. Enjoy your stay bud

why even bother signing up if you can only get up to 7 fucking posts? Fuck even I can last longer than that at the site of the never ending fucking fund drive.

[Dawgs]

20. "You lie" - Obama never said that only 5% are eligible.

Man, you guys are getting desperate.

[sharp_stick]

25. You are paraphrasing an incorrect statement

He said 5% would use it, taking into account the number that would still be covered by employment, the VA and Medicare.

However the spastic response brigade around here seems to have assumed once again that they are being sold a bag of shit by some "corporatist" (whatever the hell that means) demon in the guise of the President.

[Zynx]

31. I hate it when people use the term "corporatist" loosely. It is a synonym for "fascist"

and you would be very hard pressed to call Obama a fascist.

[rockymountaindem]

36. I've started to figure out that the reflexive shout of "corporatist!" around here is our equivalent

of all the Freepers who yell "socialist!" whenever you talk about having the government pay for anything. The understanding of corporatism is minimal, to say the least.

Hint: it doesn't mean it's corporatism every time big business gets its way.

[sharp_stick]

47. But it's easy

and sounds cool to be part of a team!!! Why understand the term when everyone is tossing it around? Someone must understand it.

Reflexive shout is probably the best description I've heard. I've been searching for the right terminology and I think you have it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. Nope.

[Mass]

33. Obama did not say that. He said 5 % would apply, according to CBO.

It would be offered to everybody who is not insured by Medicare, Medicaid, or employer insurance.

[Doctor_J]

44. That's the answer then

If I can't opt out of my company's lousy insurance plan, it's not a public option.

[enlightenment]

51. It is fascinating to me that

when someone challenges what is said - be it the President's speech or comments from the Congress people sitting on the various committees - that a veritable brigade of supporters will shout down the questioner by suggesting that they don't know what they're talking about because "it (the final bill) will be xxx/include xxx"

On the other hand, if someone suggests that the provisions of the various bills don't look very good, the same voices will declare that 'we don't know what the final bill will look like, so stop assuming'.

It's a really fantastic method of shutting down dissent from within - "we know what you don't know because we know - only no one really knows because nothing has been decided, so you can't say that. We, on the other hand, know, so we can . . ."

I've been watching the technique develop for weeks - it's quite brilliant, actually.

[Mass]

53. And it is fascinating that, if somebody disagree with you, you need to label them.

As I said more than once, I wished the bills were more solid and the public option open to all. This said, Obama never said what the OP says, even if I regret that he tried to minimize it.

I guess I am not passing your purity test, though.

[sandnsea]

58. What complete bullshit

The OP said something that was simply untrue. Obama did not say 5% would be eligible at all. It's just not the truth.

OTOH, there isn't a final bill, so some of the things people are complaining about can't be answered because there's no final bill. There are several possibilities right now.

It is the disruptors who are making things up and then asking questions as if those made up "problems" are real.

[enlightenment]

67. Thank you for proving my point.

Which had less to do with what the OP said and more about how things get parsed around here these days.

Things are 'in the bill' when it benefits the argument people are making. If it doesn't benefit their argument, then 'there isn't a final bill . . . just possibilities'.

That was my point. Finding another point to respond to isn't my bullshit - it's yours.

The OP was incorrect in their statement of fact, but the responses in this thread as to what is going to be in the final bill are just as inaccurate - since there isn't a final bill yet.

Just because an inaccurate response is seen as 'supportive' of the President's ideas doesn't make it better than the OP's inaccurate statement. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

[ThomWV]

38. It needs to be availale to anyone who wants it and robust enough to be desirable

[sabrina 1]

39. No, it's not and

I am assuming that 5% would the poorest of the poor. If that's the case, we don't need it, as medicaid already covers them. I think it was only thrown in to shut up progressives, but the impression I got was that Republicans could negotiate it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. If it's not available to the public as a whole, it's not a "public option."

[emulatorloo]

43. So since "Public Assistance" is not available to the public as a whole, does that mean it is not

"Public"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. It is available to the public as a whole. What are you talking about?

[emulatorloo]

52. It is available to people who qualify for it. If you don't qualify it isn't available

Maybe I am screwy but I always understood this as two pronged reform

=== provide basic insurance for the uninsured (exchange including a public option to compete with private)

=== strong insurance regulation to protect those who are already insured. (dropped coverage, denied on pre-existing, etc)

And of course it is possible that people who are already insured get dropped (lose job, employer changes benefits, etc) then those people would be qualified for the public option.


(ON EDIT: On the other hand I do think this may be incremental, in that the public option may get widened out eventually -- similar to how Social Security and medicare got broadened out)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. The problem is that those 5% are already covered through MedicAid.

How can a public option be competitive if it has a limited market? It's like 2 producers of shoes selling to the public. One producer can sell to 100% of the public while the other can only sell to 5% of public who already have shoes provided to them.

Maybe I'm screwy, but this doesn't sound very "competitive" to me.

[bvar22]

62. OR...

...after 10 years and an enrollment of LESS than 10 million in a costly, stigmatized, "public assistance" program that is shunned by providers (it is optional for providers)...
Will they say...
"SEE. We tried it and it doesn't work in America."

After 30 years of watching the Democratic Party at work, I have become cynical.
The "Public Option" contained in HR 3200 (the one Obama referenced) appears to me to be designed to fail.

But thats just me.
The rest of you can continue with the Victory Parade.

[emulatorloo]

42. "Public" means "Run By the Government"

Not everybody is eligible for Public Assistance either. However it is called public because the govt administers it.

[bvar22]

49. Obama was being optomistic.

The CBO projected less than 10 Million enrollment in the Public Option bu 2019.

By my math, that is less than 3%.
This will not be anywhere near enough to "keep the Insurance companies honest", or "open the door to Single Payer".

Also, Health Care Provider (doctor) participation is OPTIONAL.
With enrollment of less than 3%, I just don't see many providers participating.
It won't be worth the paperwork.

This is just barely enough for The Congress to claim they included a "Public Option".
It is NOT available to "The Public", and it is not much of an option.

It IS however, a BONANZA for the For Profit Health Insurance Industry who will see their enrollment swell by another 40 Million paying customers who will be forced to buy Health Insurance. Most of them will be paying with YOUR money in the form of subsidies.

[Generator]

54. Thank you

Last night when I was initially thrilled with the speech I didn't understand. And some dick here on DU-and a long time Du'er too-had to say oh why haven't you read the bill? ARE you fucking kidding me? The final bill is all that matters. Supposedly what the president says matters too.

I was fooled by my audacity of hope. I thought public-meant for all-not just the poorest-and I thought option meant choice. Apparently it means neither. And where's the competition from the government? Oh yeah Obama caved on that. It's better than nothing. YES, he's way better than McCain. But he's not much of a progressive,evidenced by his shout out to the real progressives-I guess he's not on that side of the aisle. In the middle gets us very little but the same old dame old.

And I guess we will never take our country back from the greedy rulers that are the real presidents of America.

[bvar22]

55. Some people are going to be very disappointed....

...when they open their new Health Care Package,
and find a BIG bill from the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.

They WILL blame The Democrats,
and rightly so.

The Democrats can say "Goodbye" to the youth vote.
The Young & Invulnerable just Starting Out are most often those who don't buy Health Insurance. Now, they will be forced to do so.

I do believe that this is the MAIN reason The Democrats have delayed implementation until AFTER the 2012 election.

[sandnsea]

60. That's why the subsidy is the most important issue n/t

[drm604]

61. The whole point of the public option, at least originally,

was to provide competition for the private insurance companies, thus reigning them in.

If the public option is restricted to only people who can't get, or can't afford, private insurance then it will only be available to people who would never be customers of the private insurers anyway. So it's not providing competition since it's drawing from a different pool of customers.

So what happened to the original rationale for a PO?

[izzybeans]

66. Here's the full quote:

"Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up."

So if he was clear than only those not with insurance will have this choice. The rest of us who have insurance are stuck with our "choice". The final sentence is a rhetorical throw-away, and besides the point, it' functions as legitimation for not opening up the option to everyone who wishes to choose it.

So, for clarity's sake, if we were to let him be clear, the "option" is only partially public because "it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance."

I guess this is a start, but I'm far from impressed. If competition and choice are at the core of this "reform" effort, then why limit the choices we can make? Fixing the problem of the uninsured is important, but it doesn't change the fact that the rest of us are stuck with blood-sucking companies who will fight every regulatory reform effort and/or undermine them through time, just as it always works out.10 years from now if Republicans are in control we're gonna hear that "these regulations are getting in the way of market magic", they'll walk them back and the cycle will continue, endlessly.

[Doctor_J]

68. Yeah, it sounds like those of eligible for private insurance are screwn

They can basically double my company-provided rates every year and there won't be a thing I can do, until I am bankrupted, at which point I will become eligible.

[Rex]

70. We are only worth random amounts of money.

No wonder I feel worthless. :(

[rustydog]

71. Yes it is an option

[eridani]

72. Yes, but hardly a ROBUST one

Voluntary opt-in to Medicare now!