How to make opposition to the Public Option magically disappear.

[johnaries]

The astroturf movement against the PO is driven by the insurance companies, right? BUT, they do want the mandate. Obviously, a mandate w/o a PO is blatantly unfair and a giveaway to the insurance companies. So, all the Dem leaders have t say is NO MANDATE without a Public Option. Period.

Voila! All the funding to the PO opposition dries up. Freedom Works and other organizations will fall apart. A few Republicans will still yell shrilly, but I'll bet you'll even start seeing ads in SUPPORT of the PO.

Of course, I know some will oppose this idea simply because they oppose a mandate under any circumstances (here come the unrecs!). Personally, I support a mandate (the only way to ensure Universal Health Care) but ONLY WITH a Public Option.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Sounds basically right to me...

The general point being: it should be a fair trade for all involved - the insurance companies get more customers, but they lower prices. The windfall of more customers without lowered prices makes no sense at all.

[KittyWampus]

12. that also sounds like what Obama said during his speech and pretty much this whole year.

[Parker CA]

2. Seems too reasonable a proposition to actually be accepted by insurance corps, I like it though. nt.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Actually some here will oppose your idea because they won't budge on the mandate

No matter how much the insurance costs people and no matter how shitty the coverage is by god they want people to be forced to buy it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. there you go, rec

and I know that universal care means universal participation.

[Cleita]

5. But how do they say voila! to the people who are giving them money

to get re-elected. A conundrum isn't it? How do we end this corruption in our government?

[johnaries]

7. Well, that's a deeper ongoing problem. And one I don't think

will be properly addressed as long as SCOTUS consider money "free speech". BTW, I hope I'm wrong on that. But look at it this way, Obama was forced to go back on his promise not to have anyon in his Admin that had previous ties to lobbying firms. He had to go back on that promise because he couldn't find any except a small handful.

I definitely agree, that's something that needs to be addressed - but I don't have any workable ideas.

[Ramulux]

6. Not gonna happen..

Mandating the American people to buy private insurance is pretty fucked up and not practical in any way. I do not see how they think everyone would all of the sudden have the money to buy private insurance. It makes perfect sense if you do with a public option, but to mandate health insurance now would be ridiculous.

[johnaries]

9. Well, that's basically what I'm saying. NO mandate without a PO.

As far as those who still can't afford even the PO, HR3200 handles that pretty well. Expanded Medicaid, and also "hardship waivers" with expanded funding for Community Health Centers where those with the waivers can go for free care.

But without the Public Option - NO MANDATE. Period.

[creeksneakers2]

8. Better to kill the whole bill

You can't force companies to cover pre-existing conditions without mandating universal participation. Otherwise, people can just wait until they are sick to buy insurance.

The whole bill sucks now and it would be better to scrap it and start over next year.

[TlalocW]

10. When I saw your subject line

I thought you were going to spill the beans about the FEMA Death Camps that we'll be putting conservatives into to ensure ... Oh, shit...

TlalocW

[johnaries]

11. Sssssh, that' Plan B now, since "Operation Bag the Teabaggers"

didn't draw enough on Sat. Won't they be surprised to know that the "rally" was really planned by Dem undercover operatives, and that if the 2 mill HAD actually shown up we would have "closed the net" on them? 60-70k just wasn't enough to tip our hand, yet.
:evilgrin:

[WillowTree]

13. What you're forgetting is that pesky little pre-existing conditions clause.

Without mandated coverage, the insurance industry will be just as opposed to giving up pre-x clauses as they are to the public option.

[johnaries]

17. Well, at least in HR3200 that won't be a problem.

But we don't know what bill will come out of a Joint Resolution.

I feel that a mandate is necessary, and that Public Option is also necessary.

But, NO mandate without a Public Option.

[Hannah Bell]

14. sure. but the corps own the solons.

[Festivito]

15. Easier, have CBO COST the option. At 3k versus more $ for less care.

There will still be complaints if politicians take a stand.

There will be wild quiet if the public option costs 3-4K/yr per capita.

The real question becomes: How much MORE do you want to pay in order to DENY care to some people?

[johnaries]

16. Shameless, self-aggrandizing kick. Because I think it may work.