Is A Public Option Being Limited To Uninsured Only? That would doom it to fail

[Better Believe It]

Public Option Being Limited To Uninsured Only?
by Andiamo
Daily Kos
July 10, 2009

I'm trying to find out if this is true. According to a number of sources that I have been reading, none of the plans currently being considered for "healthcare reform" represent any new "options" for anybody other than those currently uninsured or unemployed.

If your or a family member's employer offers insurance, even if you do not currently purchase it, apparently you won't be eligible.

Obviously, being able to purchase insurance of any kind would help many people, especially those with pre-existing conditions, it will help some people- but - it will also have a far sicker risk pool than it would if it was open to all, almost dooming it to fail at the start, AND, it won't solve a great many of the proiblems that we have been seeing with woefully inadequate affordability, blacklisting, price increases when an employee gets sick, out of control uncovered costs, high co-pays and deductibles, or bankruptcies of the "insured" due to uncovered costs.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/10/751949/-Public-Option-Being-Limited-To-Uninsured-Only

[niceypoo]

1. In the last ten years our insurance has been stripped to the bone

Starting next year they are dropping everything and going to a 'health savings account' which offers next to zero benefits.

In the last ten years our premiums have more than doubled.

Most people with insurance are under-insured. They never talk about the under insured.

[NC_Nurse]

2. Not necessarily. Plenty of people out there would like to leave their jobs to

do something else, but can't because of health insurance. It's almost impossible to get a policy individually that is affordable as well as adequate.
People who want to work contract or start their own businesses could choose the public option too. They're not all necessarily any sicker than other groups.

[vaberella]

3. Has no one been paying attention to when Obama speaks?

He's said, there are people who make too much to receive medicaid, but too little to sustainably maintain health insurance, or just too little to make full payments. Those people will get insurance. Meaning, you may have insurance, but can't really pay it and it's bankrupting you and if you can't find a good deal in the options listed, you can opt into the public option. This is of course if your job doesn't provide health insurance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. And why are employers being penalized? Why do some not have to

bear that expense, and others have to? How does that keep those who carry insurance competitive?

It's a sure bet that if employers did NOT carry insurance for employees, 75% of those who have insurance would not be able to afford it. How many employers offer insurance which is practically unworkable due to high cost, high deductibles and high co-pays, making their employees still unable to afford a doctor but keeping them, technically, insured? Those people are not eligible for the public option, but need it just as much.

Remember, Sicko was not about the uninsured - it was about people who ARE insured and are still being fucked. Having private insurance is NOT a solution, and a public option that is not open to those people is NOT a solution.

[kath]

7. Medical care should NOT be linked to employment, nor to being married to someone who has

coverage through their job. Job loss or divorce should never mean that health care becomes unavailable to you. NEVER.

So much of what is being bandied about are NOT solutions, as you state. Some stupid band-aid type "reform" will be worse than no change at all.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Taking away either the "public" part or the "option" part makes it meaningless.

[Jakes Progress]

6. We ain't getting a real public option.

Just get used to it.

[kath]

8. and we're probably not going to get any meaningful reform.

as someone said here more than a month ago, this is shaping up to be the mother of all sellouts.