Will you support a health care bill that does NOT contain a public option?

[TayTay]

Poll question: Will you support a health care bill that does NOT contain a public option?

I am curious to see where the range of opinion on the health care debate falls in this group. Just a little survey to gauge the public opinion in here. We have had a big range of ideas recently and I have greatly enjoyed reading them and have learned a lot, btw.

[Blaukraut]

1. I voted no, although it's beginning to look like the PO won't

make it into a final bill. Co-ops will not work, because they will still be run by private insurance companies that will be focused on profit. A public option, along with heavily regulated privates, is the second best solution - the best being single payer.

[wisteria]

2. I said other.

I would prefer not to have insurance companies continue to dictate what goes and what doesn't. I prefer the public option just for the government oversight, but if our goal is to insure more people, cut costs and provide quality care, then if this can be accomplished w/o the PO, then I would support it. Unfortunately, we can't always get everything we want and something has to be done to revamp medical care in this country.

[karynnj]

8. I am 100% with you here and I am the other vote for other

In addition, because there will be a mandate to buy insurance, it is important that the cost be driven down - and the public option was one tool for doing so.

My reason is based on my own experiences. I realize that I am among the fortunate people who has had employer provided health insurance since I left college and supposedly will have it for life. But, a few years ago, my oldest left college for a year, partially because of medical problems. Neither my plan, through the company I retired from, or my husband's plan would cover a child her age who was not in school. We researched how she could be covered and found that there was no reasonable option except COBRA on the plan she had been on with us. We paid for that, as we couldn't take the risk of having her not insured. As it was, she returned to college before COBRA expired.

What that did show me was the importance of the provisions likely to be in the bill on pre-existing conditions. Additionally, it showed me the importance of being able to buy into a group plan - which is effectively what we did with COBRA.

I also have a more positive view of insurance companies. We have incurred very large medical bills and have had the insurance company pay the bulk of the charges. This includes open heart surgery to pay for a mitral valve repair needed because of a freak accident my husband had falling on ice and high medical costs at various times for my kids. It is true that I spent hours on the phone getting approvals and making sure they paid what they should, but they ultimately did pay.

The third important thing likely to be there is the subsidies for people up to 4 times the poverty level.

These three things are not "nothing". I think the Democrats should have done a better job communicating what the public option was. I suspect one problem was that until legislation is written what is meant is not completely known - and to my knowledge, supporters in the House and Senate did not work together to agree on one detailed specification of what was meant by "public option". There was also bad luck - Kennedy and Dodd have for different reasons not been out leading this as much as would have happened had Kennedy's health been better and if Dodd were not somewhat tarnished by Countrywide. That has left the discussion to mostly Baucus and Conrad. Obama likely waited too long to get personally involved.

[TayTay]

3. I said this in another thread at DU: G

The original thread asked if Dems why Dems were "losing" the debate on health care:

My two cents worth were:

Because it has turned into a policy debate and it is really a debate about people.

Where are the stories about the people who have been affected by lousy insurance coverage? Where are the people that, during the '08 campaign, told stories about how being cutting off from insurance wrecked havoc with their families and finances? Where are the stories from people who went into bankruptcy because of medical bills? Where are the stories about the Malkins of the world who attacked children during the last S-CHIP debate and staked out their houses because they dared speak of needing health care? (That goes to the question of free speech: those who the Malkins and Beck's despise, they seek to shut down, including children.)

We are the Party of the People. We should be letting those people speak. We should be showing families on TV who need this reform to go through or they stand to lose everything they have worked for in life. We need to show the refuseniks of the health care industry; those people who can't buy coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

We need to trust the people and trust that we are on the right side of morality and history here. This is not a policy debate for wonks where what matters is who can link to the wonkiest source. This is a fight to save the lives and financial security of millions of ordinary Americans who "play by the rules" and are getting burned in return. We are their champions and their voice. We need to speak up and tell their stories, not let demagogues like Palin take over the conversation with lies.

My answer to my own poll would be OTHER. I feel that the chances for a public option, despite what we read on the blogs, was always about 50/50. I thought that last year and I think the chances have fallen slightly since then. However, I also think that this is the best chance we might have for another 40 years to put restrictions on the health care industry and how they allocate coverage and I do NOT want to see that chance slip away. So, I could support the plan without a public option, but it HAS to have other reforms in it.

And I really wish the debate on our side was about the people, not the wonk. Wonk doesn't get us allies, personal stories do.

[YvonneCa]

4. I voted 'no' because I think it is so important and...

...should not be given up without a fight. I put it above 'bi-partisanship' in importance and I will be VERY disappointed if it isn't fought for.

That said, I will still value any reform as an improvement and a step in the right direction. But I probably won't still be around for future steps. THIS is the moment. NOW is the time to fight. JMHO.

[YvonneCa]

7. I'd add that I'm starting to worry that Obama...

...is heading down a path that may alienate too many people.

Do you remember how Bush kept making decisions that lost him support of groups of people...for example, he lost seniors by talking privatization of Social Security, etc? Obama will alienate some of his base, just because he didn't promote single payer (I know he never promised that). He'll lose more without a public option, IMO. In education, he's about to alienate teachers AND teachers' unions over tying evaluation to student test scores.

I know the country faces big problems that need big solutions...but they need the correct solutions. Caving to the other side may take baby steps forward, but at what cost? I want him to succeed. I DON'T want him to become President Bush.

[Blaukraut]

5. President Obama has been doing a good job with the personal

stories in his townhalls so far. If the Dem congresspeople followed his lead, they might be more successful at getting control of the message again.
I think the US missed the boat for real healthcare about 100 years ago. By not implementing a national program like other countries did and allowing a private insurance sector to take hold, complete and comprehensive healthcare reform today is impossible without huge disruption. Ideally, (imo) a public option would ultimately drive private insurance out of business and we would end up with single payer, but that's the socialist in me talking, and I understand that most Americans aren't ready or willing to go that route.

[ray of light]

6. Maybe the question on a poll should be, "Will you donate time and money to Obama or Dem candidates

if there is no public option?"

I think I'll post it in GD. I did decide to post it if you want to join in that vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6319229

The question I couldn't put in is "will you abstain from voting or vote 3rd party" because I know people will be tempted to sit things out if things don't go our way but it would throw off the results of the other question.

[TayTay]

15. Yes, yes I would

I would support and work for Dems who do not vote for a public option. Though, technically, that won't happen if a public option is not there for them to vote for. The House bill has it, the Senate bill might not (still being written) so it might not come to that.

I have never been a single-issue person. I think the public option is a great idea and I am glad that those who backed it and fought for it did so. But if it is removed because it does not have the votes of the Congress, then it is removed and political reality has shifted and I will work and live in that new world. I will have no choice. The world does not conform to what I want or don't want. 95 times out of 100, I lose. Then, you do it again. That is how it is done.

[ray of light]

9. Here's my fear...

the single-payer was watered down for the 'public option.'

Now, perhaps it's being watered down for the 'coops'...

And then the Republicans will see they've won LOTS of concessions and will water down REGULATORY MEASURES next!

It's the old, "Give an inch take a mile..." type thing from them.

As far as I'm concerned the public option was the compromise which needed to go hand in hand with strong regulatory laws and a department actually set to enforce those laws!

And we need both in order to bring jobs back to our country. So that businesses can thrive. Businesses will be able to save money on other costs they currently incur. And since the public option was suppose to be covered by everyone contributing to it, then there is no irresponsible 'tax and spend' going on. And...hey. It's the Republicans who tax the lower 98% and spend, spend, spend... It's way past time we do-away with their soundbite on taxes.

[karynnj]

11. I know that many on the left have used that argument,

but it really is a bit bogus, because it never was remotely possible. In some ways, because it diverted energy and enthusiasm on the left from the public option, it likely hurt the effort to get a public option. (Which also was hurt by so many people suggesting it was the gateway to single payer.)

If single payer is eliminated, regulation becomes more important. The strongest remaining tool would be the comparison of plans that will allow people to compare price and benefits of the various plans. That should create some competition, though there are many places with very few companies providing insurance - so there will be places where there is a monopoly or oligopoly.

[ray of light]

13. No. It is not bogus. It did not hurt the effort to get a public option.

There is too much blaming the left when in fact the Republicans and the blue dogs have done everything they could to stop any reform whatsovever!

Tell me...what strong regulations and reforms have the Bluedogs or Republicans presented other than co-ops? What have they done to make sure that there is a meaningful reduction in costs and universal coverage? It is Obama talking about having a place to compare plans and options. The bluedogs and Republicans talk about protecting the insurance companies.

The left is pushing for strong and real reform and not one that allows the insurance agencies to be the sole provider in the market.

I hear a lot of blaming things on the left because they push for the strongest reform of all, single payer or public option, but they also push for strong regulations and they push for competitive choice within the framework we've been given.

I think it's vastly unfair to keep blaming the left wing of the party who basically is asking for the strongest reform that would provide our country with both cost efficiency and universal coverage.

I'm sick to death of the left-wing bashing in this forum.

[karynnj]

14. I am not blaming the left - and certainly not crediting the right in

trying to do something. I am a little mystified that there is surprise that single payer was not given any consideration. None of the major candidates proposed it and it really is something that doesn't have sufficient support. I guess I have been more concerned with the bashing of people like Kerry, Obama, and others, who are working hard for us, by the left, for not doing things they don't have the ability to do.

[Inuca]

10. I went for "other"

I am mad as hell at what is going on and feel like banging my head against the wall not understanding how so many people can be so blind and confused. On the other hand, I remember hearing Jonathan Alter say a week or so ago, probably on Countdown, that though he would like to see a public option, if anybody had told him a few years ago that we are going to get a revamping of the health care system that will eliminate the pre-existing conditions aberration (the words are of course mine, not Alter's, but the idea is 100% his), eliminate life time caps, ensure that everybody that wants insurance can get it, lowers the costs for the insured, etc., he would have been damn happy. That's basically where I stand. Even if we do not get the famous public option, as long as we DO get the other major points, it's still a very big thing.

I was spared so far any personal horrible story, but I was without insurance for just two months last year. It was worse than it sounds because I knew my insurance was ending and until just before it ended I did not have another job lined up, in other words I had no idea what I will do. And it scared the hell out of me. Also, my new insurance kicked it after one month in the new job, and I had to provide a paper from the previous insurance to show that it had not lapsed more than three months earlier, if I remember correctly. Had the in-between period been longer, some pre-existing condition non-sense would have kicked in, not sure about the details. Incidentally, I work for the state of IL now, so I guess it's an above average deal, but pre-existing conditions were still an issue. Is there anybody in his/her fifties who does NOT have some kind of pre-existing condition??

[beachmom]

12. I voted yes. I would prefer a public option, but as I have mentioned

in other threads, Holland has no public insurance, yet there is universal health care and a system that works well. And I think that the public option was being used as the be all end all of the reform bill, which it never was. Now without that "fallback" they will have to deal with the difficult issues of re-existing conditions and cost barriers to those who do not have health insurance head on, instead of pretending a "public option" would have solved all of those problems.

But I suppose health care reform may collapse because I think there are progressives in the House who said they would not vote for the bill without a public option. I always agreed with Sen. Kerry not to make such a pledge.

[YvonneCa]

16. Krugman blog on this subject, for those who...

...want a depressing read: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/the-public-option-as-a-signal/?apage=3#comments

[sandnsea]

17. I have subsidized insurance

It has paid for my thyroid treatment, my ear surgery and likely reconstruction so I can hear again, my husband's Hep C treatment, triple hernia surgery, removal of a cyst, and now pain treatment for a torn disc.

I would be a bit hypocritical to take health care for myself and oppose it for the other 47 million in this country.

[ladym55]

18. I voted no

But I have carefully read all of the arguments here ... and it's good to read an actual discussion about the issue instead of hype and silliness. I have seen many good points here from many different perspectives, and I have some ideas to consider and contemplate now that I hadn't before.

I will explain why I voted no. I'm with Howard Dean on this. We need the public option to make this reform viable. I am a single-payer supporter, but each time I've contacted my legislators I've told them I would love Medicare for all (which I think WOULD work), but a viable public option is needed to get the insurance industry under control. Insurance and Big Pharma control too many of our legislators (who themselves have a LOVELY public insurance plan, and they seem pretty happy with it) and these groups also control MSM. All of the cards are stacked against Obama and the Democrats because the corporations are controlling the conversation, and they are playing dirty. This tells me just how terrified they are that this will work. To me, letting the insurance companies control the reform is like letting putting the fox in charge of the hen house, and I have images of another Medicare Part D.

For the JK constituents in this group, could you give me your thoughts on the plan that Massachusetts has put in place? Do you think it's working? I read a very positive editorial in the Globe recently, but I've also read stories that were far more critical. I'd be very interested in hearing your perspective.

As always, I come to this group to read good ideas and reasoned, thoughtful discussion. Thanks, everybody! :hi: