Tom Harkin, new Chairman replacing Teddy says,"There will be a public option in Reform"!

[FrenchieCat]

On Ed...just now on MSNBC!

[ccharles000]

1. k/r

[ShortnFiery]

2. I feel better - hopeful - given that this news is coming from Tom Harkin.

Thanks for the scoop. :hi:

[lapfog_1]

3. Details.

We need the details.

A public option that only 5% of the population is ALLOWED to opt for is not a public option.

[FrenchieCat]

4. It is the beginning of one......and that's 5% "to begin with".

[tridim]

5. That has already been debunked. It's simply not true.

[lapfog_1]

8. What, that we need details?

now that's funny!!! (Details, we don't need no stinkin details!!



(that was weird)

[tridim]

9. The details are there, don't ignore them and pretend they aren't

Obama said he expected 5% to join the public option, however there is no cap. If you can't afford private insurance, you will roll over to the PO, be it 5% or 50%.

[lapfog_1]

11. Yup, here they are...

President Obama:

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. (Applause.) And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. 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 percent of Americans would sign up.

----

What part of "would not impact those of you who already have insurance" and "believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up" did you simply not hear last night?

[tridim]

13. You claimed only 5% would be ALLOWED to participate

Obama said he thinks 5% will SIGN UP.

Do you really not see the difference?

[lapfog_1]

18. Sir or Madam, Can you read simple declarative statements???

Right in the middle of the text I QUOTED from the President's speech last night. Included in my last post...

"It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance."

So, what part of "only be an option for those" do you not get?

His estimate, also in the transcript, is that there are currently 30 million Americans without insurance (that would include ME, BTW). That's 10 percent of the total population. So... of the entire pool of people that would be CURRENTLY eligible, he expects half to choose the "public option". So already it is restricted to a max of 10%. Now, why would the rest NOT choose it... because they will be covered by the other reforms (namely, the requirement on business to provide health insurance). That last part isn't stated, but the implication is clear.

But OK, let's say that you have another explanation for that.

So change my percentage from 5% to 10% (the ENTIRE pool of the uninsured). That's ALL that are allowed to choose it.

If you currently HAVE health insurance, even crappy health insurance with high deductibles (so long as they don't "bankrupt" you), you CANNOT CHOOSE the public option. President Obama SAID THIS... if you bother to read and comprehend what he said.

Edit to add something really important.

By restricting the "public option" to those that do not currently have health insurance... how in the world does a public option now create competition to the "for profit" health insurance industry??? In other words, the ENTIRE reason for it's existence is to provide a market force that keeps the for-profits in check. But if NO ONE that has for profit insurance is allowed to choose the public option instead, what the hell good is it? If you say, well, it will provide insurance for those that can't afford it... why not provide HEALTH CARE for those that cannot afford it. I.E. expand Medicaid.

[Critters2]

6. I was SOOO glad to hear Tom replaced Teddy....and this is why! nt

[DesertFlower]

7. yes. i saw it. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Define "public option"

[FrenchieCat]

12. I'd suggest that you call up harkin's office and ask him.

But I'll try, based on what I have read...
A public option would be a government administered health insurance program made available as an option to a limited segment of the population, ie., low income, the self employed, and small business with 25 employees or less. It would come in at anywhere from 20 to 25% cheaper than private insurance plans and will be funded by the government initially, and at some prescribed time, premiums paid would become the source of funding.

Some low income folks would receive subsidies of sorts if they couldn't afford the premium cost. It would be offered on a limited basis, although at any point, the congress could relegislate to open it up to more individuals.....i.e., starts out small, and grows in time.....or doesn't, depending on its success as one of many plans available.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. That's what you've read, you say ......

.... but you really have no idea what it actually means.

And yet we're all cheering because someone said the "public option" is still on the table.

A year ago, "public option" was not even in the lexicon.

In other words, since there really, truly, actually, concretely is no definition of "public option", we're cheering for ....... what, exactly?



(By the way, your explanation pretty much matches my own suppositions. And I'm not out of hand opposed to it. In fact, I, like you, ASSUMING MY SUPPOSITION IS CORRECT - and that's a big leap for me, I would be very happy with it. I'm simply not ready to cheer for little more than a mention of it. Until it has clear, unambiguous meaning, I'll take a wait and see stance rather than strap on the ol' poms poms.)

[jtrockville]

15. Not really "public" then, is it?

Why do politicians insist on naming things so deceptively? When I hear "public option", I think "public school", or "public library", or "public park". This "public" option is anything but.

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. I agree - the messaging on this was a bad move.

The word Public conjers up negative feelings. A friend said the other day that it sounds like Welfare. I hadn't thought about that, but I can see it.

[jtrockville]

22. Actually, I think it conjures up good feelings. But that's me.

I actually like all the things I mentioned (public schools, libraries, parks, etc). That's why I had such high hopes for this "public" option. Until I realized it was a not-so-public option.

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. I wasn't going to add this, but the person I referenced

compared it to "public toilets". :/

Why I had to drill down as it didn't resonate that way with me either.

[jtrockville]

27. Well... um.... I hadn't quite made that correlation... lol

[Stinky The Clown]

23. It IS welfare .... with a small "w"

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. The person I was referencing is Independent and can't decide

if they lean Left or Libertarian. Lots of strange (to me) views and "welfare" to her isn't a positive thing. I think its a lifeline, but didn't argue. Libertarian-leaning people with random leftist views can be a little off the charts.

[lapfog_1]

26. Here is how the President defined the "public" part of the public option.

President Obama:

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. (Applause.) And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. 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 percent of Americans would sign up.

---

Now, me being a straight forward person, I take him at his word. You can ONLY opt for the public option if you currently do NOT HAVE insurance, no matter what kind you presently have, or what you pay for it, or even what it covers. And he estimates (with the CBO's help) that only 5 percent of the population would opt for it (namely because the initial pool of POSSIBLE participants is only 10% of the population, and I'm guessing that he believes that the number of people without insurance goes down once employers over a certain size are forced to provide insurance).

But the REASON for the public option was not to provide health insurance to the poor, the main reason was that it was going to provide COMPETITION to the for-profits, an idea that was swept aside in the speech last night (as least, I can't find anything). President Obama is now counting solely on the "exchange" to provide that competition. But the public option (assuming it comes into being) won't even be ON THE EXCHANGE (for most people). In other words, there is no incentive for the for-profits to lower their costs just to pick up another percentage point or two of the US population (their share of the uninsured).

I repeat. It was a great speech, but it's a bad plan.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. I will move from bummed to cautiously optimistic

This is good to hear. The HELP bill is the best of the bunch from what I have read about them, although I like the Weiner and Kucinich amendments over in the House. My Senator sits on the Health committee and is very strongly in favor of the PO.

[librechik]

17. Harkin's presence is the only thing that gives me hope in HC

he's true blue! as are so few!

[Maru Kitteh]

20. Thanks Tom, from your neighbors in Nebraska!

:hi:

[watrwefitinfor]

21. And thanks, Tom, from your friends in South Carolina!

:hi: