San Francisco Chronicle Editorial: Public option isn't much of either

[Better Believe It]

San Francisco Chronicle
Editorial:
Public option isn't much of either
October 29, 2009

Most of you all thought the public option was dead," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez. "Rumors of its death were greatly exaggerated." They were exaggerated, but not by much: the latest House and Senate health care bills have a public option that's neither public nor an option. Seven years into reform, about 90 percent of Americans still wouldn't be allowed to get coverage under the public option.

And those who could might not be able to afford it: Even with subsidies, families could wind up paying thousands of dollars per year. Even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, celebrated the unveiling of her hard-won $894 billion health care package Thursday, it was sobering to think about the details.

First, though, it's important to acknowledge the significance of the moment. After months of infighting and many missed opportunities, the House is ready to vote on a bill. Not a perfect bill, but a bill that contains a somewhat-public sort-of-option and will extend coverage to at least 35 million people. Pelosi deserves credit for keeping her caucus together long enough to produce even that.

Unfortunately, this may be the happiest moment for a long time. A public option that only covers, at most, 10 percent of the population won't provide much price competition with private insurers. The House and the Senate still have to agree on who's going to pay for the plan, and the answer won't please anyone. The ultimate compromise may have a higher price tag and an even-less-public option.

Stay tuned.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/29/ED6Q1ACFFL.DTL

[villager]

1. Yup. But it's a great big effin' *triumph* though, right?

n/t