Why do people cling to a word, without considering the reality of things?

[Mass]

Of course, the media has done its job, saying that the PO was dead in the Senate deal (how many times did they write that anyway?), and it may be true that the word "public option" disappears from the bill. However, I am sort of very surprised by the reaction on DU. Most of us were already agreeing that the PO was dead in the Senate bill, given that its scope was so reduced and it did not have any negotiation powers, which would likely have made it as expensive as private plans.

It seems as if the word "public option" is more important than what it meant in reality for people.

Now, I am not endorsing the Senate deal. We do not have the details, so supporting it seems as irresponsible as rejecting it, but, assuming that all the i are dotted and all the t are crossed, the plan announced does not seem worse than what was on the table currently (of course, the devil is in the details).

I am a strong supporter of single payer or a strong public option, but we were very far from any of that anyway (something that will remain incomprehensible to me, but put that on my European upbringing). But, if somebody had started a single payer but called it something else, would people have acted the same way? And if they had called single payer a very weak plan that was not useful at all, would they have supported it. I am as liberal as the vast majority of people on DU, am disappointed by what the Senate (and House) produced, but cannot understand why people who were calling the plan good until now are rejecting it today because the word PO disappeared.

[beachmom]

1. Josh Marshall made a similar argument a couple of weeks ago.

That the "public option" is not worth fighting for because it doesn't do much. Also, Kerry and others have said it would only affect maybe 5% of the people, so my view is, get the thing passed, because at least some basic good reform like getting rid of pre-existing condition will go through.

I agree with you that many European countries are much better (France, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, although I am not a big fan of England's or Canada's), but that is due to traditions that simply do not exist in the U.S. (Switzerland being the exception as their system changed fairly recently). So given that reality, I think it is very important to pass health care reform, worts and all. And really, at this point whatever deal happens is going to be the only game in town. So I can say without knowing all details (unless something drastic and new is put in that completely changes the whole thing), I can pretty much say that I am going to back it.

I have stayed away from the debate because I have found many DUers and Kossaks unable to discuss the issue with logic and reason. Screaming slogans seems to be all they are interested in. And denigrating anyone who slightly disagrees as shills for Big Pharma or some other corporate entity.

[Blaukraut]

2. The proposed medicare buy in for 55 to 64 year olds

would actually cover more people than the opt in public option would have. Even if the medicare buy in won't be subsidized until 2014, it is still a better deal than a public option that was only available to 3 million people. Ideally, medicare buy in will be expanded to cover more people over time. It would actually make the program more solvent to have younger, healthier folks paying into it.

I do hope they will be able to raise the medicaid coverage cap to 150% of poverty level. That would cover an additional large group.

[Mass]

3. I need a new pause from DU, I think.

The healthcare discussion is ridiculous. There are serious questions about the healthcare bill that bears discussing, but you could at least think that, on a progressive board, people would understand how Medicare works and that it is not free (neither is single payer). The principle is that you switch the responsibility of paying from one group of people to another (redistribution. I am totally for it, btw, but the idea that it is free is ridiculous).

[TayTay]

4. Agree with everything said here

Medicare and Medicaid are in serious trouble financially. They need to be rehauled so that the bills get paid in 2012 and beyond.

We can't have this discussion. Take the recent uproar over the necessity and frequency of breast cancer screenings. The agency that issued the call to begin screenings as routine, 2-year events, starting at age 50 was an independent agency without a political agenda. The uproar over the release of those findings was out-of-proportion to what was called for in the new guidelines.

We could not discuss what was said rationally. It was considered rationing by Republicans, who actually do favor de facto rationing by denial of care. (The crocodile tears from Repubs on this issue was an amazing and sickening thing to see.) Dems couldn't defend rational policy because it looked bad or like you were denying coverage. This was a policy issue.

The http://tinyurl.com/y9hoqr4">Times of India wrote: "According to USPSTF's report, one life is saved for every 1,900 women aged 40-49 screened for breast cancer, compared to one life for every 1,300 in the 50-59 year age group." This is the actual debate on health care. This is the ugly side of what we are talking about. This kind of hard debate over the merits is beyond our political system at the moment.

60 Minutes had a piece a few Sundays ago on how expensive end-of-life care is. (30% of money goes to the last month of life.) We can't discuss this, even though a lot of those deaths are drawn out and, in some cases, gruesome affairs. Is there a better way to spend our health care monies? According to people like Sarah Palin, no. Anything attempt to alter a failing system is an invitation to set up "death panels." The debate on the left is just as crazy and detached from reality, inmo.