CNN Reporting: Public Option "Replaced" by Non-Profit Private Insurance

[garybeck]

(CNN) -- Liberal and moderate Democrats have reached "broad agreement" on the public option portion of the Senate health care bill,

snip

Two Democratic sources said that the deal includes proposals to replace the public option by creating a not-for-profit private insurance option overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, much like the current health plan for federal workers, and another allowing people 55 and older to buy into Medicare coverage that currently is available to those 65 and older.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/08/health.care/index.html

[stevebreeze]

1. so the insurance co's are going to compete with themselves and that's gonna

drive down cost? yea right

[dflprincess]

2. And "keep them honest"

:sarcasm:

[Oregone]

6. You think the public option was designed to "compete" with anything?

[merh]

9. don't forget

they will remain exempt from anti-trust laws.

[sandnsea]

3. We undid not-for-profit insurance in the 80s

because the Blues said they couldn't provide competitive coverage. Surely one of these people remembers the 80s?

[mcablue]

4. A majority supported the public option

The majority loses.

[Zen Democrat]

5. According to TPM, failure with the non-profits would trigger the public option.

Everywhere you turn there's another inside story, but apparently we're not going to get a definitive explanation until it's been scored.

[DJ13]

7. Next time the party wants to win a majority they can count me out

Majorities in our government now just equals the ability to sell their votes for more money than they received as the minority.

It makes not one bit of difference to the voters anymore.

[tblue]

14. No. It makes a difference. Just not a 180-degree difference.

As frustrating as our sorry Democratic majority is (and I rag on them a lot here), at least it includes a handful of genuine champions, where in the GOP, there are nothing but genuine asshats. It makes a difference. Not nearly enough of a difference, but the significance of the chairmanships and the choice of bills brought to the floor -- can't be overstated. Hang in there. I know how you feel. We gotta keep the pressure on, and we will.

[subterranean]

8. Would the non-profit plan take three years to set up?

Would it be available to anyone who wants it? Depending on the details, this could be better than a watered-down, restrictive public option. I also like the idea of allowing people to buy into Medicare. That's an instant public option, at least for those in the 55-64 age group.

[kelly1mm]

12. You do know that there are no subsidies for the buy-in till 2013 right? $800

per month per person or there about is the cost. Yeah! Maybe after 2013 it will only be a part of that - who knows. The repubs will probably be in charge by then so I don't count on it.

[gateley]

13. If I were still employed and getting insurance through work, I'd choke on the

$800 price tag. That's supposed to be a government plan? I'd stick with my employer provided insurance for about $200 a month.

This isn't helping a lot. And what of all the people between now and 2013? How many will die between now and then for lack of coverage?

[BeHereNow]

15. Who the FUCK has $800.00 dollars to spare?

Not me.

BHN

[w4rma]

10. Been there done that! No! (nt)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Really not much to see here until we get the details. n/t

[Robbien]

16. New scheme would involve a government-run monopoly, but give the profits to the private sector

All the costs go to the taxpayer while the insurance companies rake in enormous profits


Sounds exactly like the bankster bailout program.