Single-payer health care is the same as having a public option

[slipslidingaway]

Poll question: Single-payer health care is the same as having a public option

while maintaing private plans.

[Oregone]

1. Isn't "Public Option" a new code for "Not Single-Payer"?

[enlightenment]

2. Single payer is about the availablity of health CARE

'Public option' is about the availability of health INSURANCE.

Health insurance doesn't set your broken bone. Health care does that.

If you listen carefully to politicians when they say 'public option' you can hear them sucking on the insurance lobby's teat . . .

[slipslidingaway]

5. Great explanation, thanks. n/t

[Fireweed247]

8. yes. exactly!

This is bullshit bait and switch and we need to scream loudly at our Congressmen and DEMAND single payer. The insurance companies must be removed in order to save the money required to fund real health care.

We have to DEMAND single payer and let them know we are not as stupid as they think we are!!





(on an aside: anyone notice there are DUers now telling us that we should demand the public option, and we should really think of all the poor insurance people that will be out of a job:cry:)

[Oregone]

10. I gotta disagree

Single-payer isn't just about the availability, its also about the affordability and how it operates (no excluding pre-existing conditions and always providing care)

On the other hand, the "public option" seems to be about appeasing the masses without accomplishing anything (especially anything that can threaten the existing structure).

By the way, health insurance may not set your bone. But single-payer, universal health insurance will pay for the care to do that, no exceptions. Sometimes people are unclear on whether they want single-payer coverage or a complete government run medical system.

[slipslidingaway]

4. Maybe it is, but why confuse the two issues. n/t

[Oregone]

11. Hence, why they chose that name.

[slipslidingaway]

23. Yes, the fight went from SP to a fight for a public option now

known as SP.

:evilfrown:

[Froward69]

3. Whatever happens

Insurance company's will not let go of this golden goose. And thus any type of health care plan will fail as too expensive. Insurance and pharmaceuticals will see to that. sad but true.

[slipslidingaway]

6. They will not let go until people demand that profits go for health

care and what is happening now is the two terms are being used as if they are the same system.

:(

[Froward69]

24. I agree

they are dancing around with the wool... about to cover our eyes with it, saying "this is what you want". When we all know what we want and it does NOT include profit in/from health care.
:pals:

:banghead:

[slipslidingaway]

26. Well said ...

"they are dancing around with the wool... about to cover our eyes with it, saying "this is what you want".


Me too...

:banghead:

[TahitiNut]

7. In the view of many, the "public option" is a path toward "single payer."

The insurance industry shares that viewpoint and are lobbying against the "public option" almost as vigorously as "single payer." The conventional wisdom (which is rarely either) is that 'single payer' (HR 676) cannot pass.

What I find surreal is that the insurance industry is openly and tacitly admitting that the 'public option' would be so cost-effective that the insurance industry couldn't compete. This is tantamount to openly admitting that the public would be best-served by 'single payer' -- which, of course, has been proven by every other nation in the OECD.

IMHO, any "health care reform" WITHOUT (at least) a viable 'public option' isn't health care reform at all, and I'll actively oppose it, even without a dog in that fight.

[Fireweed247]

12. the "public option" is a path toward "single payer."

yes they are pushing that bait and switch meme big time!

!!!GOD!!! they always win when they pull this bullshit and I can't take it anymore!!!

When I think of how many people's lives are shattered by health care issues, losing everything due to costs at a time when they need less stress to recover not more....how many families haven fallen apart due to the financial ruin caused by our health profit system.

Perhaps if the population in our country were healthier, we could have been fighting the bullshit in our government more easily and maybe that is exactly why they do not want to help us be healthy.

But now more than ever, we cannot settle for their lies. There are lives at stake here. 100,000 die per year for lack of health care! How many died on 9/11 but we will continue our war of error forever. WE are our own worst enemy.

After this bullshit trillion dollar giveaway to the banks, they have no freaking excuse not to give us real health care. WE must DEMAND it until we get it, or grab the torches and pitchforks!!

/rant

[slipslidingaway]

13. I understand that some say this is a path to SPHC, but the terms

should not be confused IMO.

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8390310&mesg_id=8391117

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option

"That would depend entirely on how a public option was set up
Should PNHP support a public Medicare-like option in a market of private plans?

Health Policy Q&A with PNHP Co-founders Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler on 04/17/2009


PNHP should tell the truth: The “public plan option” won't work to fix the health care system for two reasons..."

[Oregone]

15. Yeah, the cherry picking mentioned there is a huge concern

If you stick a public plan with all the high-risk individuals, you will bankrupt it out of the gates (and only save private insurers a bundle of dough)

[slipslidingaway]

21. Yes it is...

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option

"2 - A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the public plan - which started as the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding mechanism for HMOs - and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients; with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan."

[TahitiNut]

16. I understand that quite well.

The strategy of the insurance industry is quite clear ...
(1) Kill 'single payer' in its crib and DON'T ALLOW it under any circumstances. The industry will "go to the mattresses" on this, make no mistake. Indeed, I'm suspicious that a HUGE part of the current financial industry fiasco is a scorched-earth strategy -- promising total collapse if these fat cats don't hold onto total control.
(2) Cripple the 'public option' and any 'health care reform' by prohibiting taxpayer subsidies and any kind of standardized cost edicts. The LAST thing the health care insurance industry wants is a totally level playing field of uniform stadardized fee schedules, uniform eligibility standards, and uniform paperwork processing ... anything that would make them compete on operations instead of denial of coverage and big-footing the cost criteria.

But I'll say again ... any 'health care reform' WITHOUT a viable 'public option' at the very minimum is NOT health care reform at all. Indeed, it's barely reform even with it.

There's NO question that single-payer is essential.

[Oregone]

20. "it's barely reform even with it"

Sometimes its dangerous to pursue useless "reform" engineered to fail and distract from the main goal. Further, upon passing such "reform", a pacified populance may not be motivated to demand it again for decades.

Im afraid that "reform", for the sake of "reform", is being pursued simply to pacify people, not solve problems.

[slipslidingaway]

22. But it is not just insurance companies who are killing SP in its

crib, it is barely allowed to be discussed and is now being mentioned as if it the same as public option insurance.

[mmonk]

9. Nope. Under single payer, everybody would be under it.

I don't mind reform including a public option like medicare. But we won't get it because the health insurers could not really compete with it and members of Congress are in office to serve them while fooling us into thinking they serve us.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Exactly..."everybody would be under it" n/t

[alberg]

17. I'm with Howard Dean on this. Public Option gets us to Single Payer

My understanding of this issue is that if we push to "take away" the private insurance from the people who (for wahtever reason) still believe it is a good thing - we will fail, as the Clinton's failed, because the Health Insurance Lobby will push the "fear button" that the government is going to "force" people to give up their current healthcare and we will lose enough political support to actually lose the battle. Instead, if we are successful in getting a real Public Option, people will naturally gravitate towards it and over time we will end up with Single Payer. I'm not concerned about labels - I want to fundamentally change the Health Care System in the US and I believe that our best chance to actually do that is to pass a bill with a real Public Option as part of the package.

[Oregone]

18. Did Dean originally envision this with all the constraints Schumer is introducing?

You know, Dean's intention, if I understand it, was to "deviously" sneak SPHC in using a public option. Could it be that people are now going to deviously alter the plan to steer everyone right back to square one?

[slipslidingaway]

25. Well I hope Dean is right, the real failure is that we have nobody

in a leadership position within our Party to advocate for SPHC.

[Occam Bandage]

19. In practice, it would be within a decade. nt

[leftstreet]

27. What incentive would we have for purchasing ins if there's a public option?

If the 'public option' is being marketed as a prequel to single payer, why would anyone continue to spend money on private insurance premiums?

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

28. Because their workplaces would still offer discounted premiums.

Also, they might include "elective" options
like weight reduction surgeries and breast
implants.

[leftstreet]

29. Why would an employer offer coverage when the rabble can get public ins?

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

30. Do differentiate themselves from the rabble...and to attract talent.

Could cover private rooms, etc....

[slipslidingaway]

31. Because the private system might afford a higher level of

coverage and care, how many primary care doctors and specialists will sign on to the public option plan???


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option

"Would a “public plan option” at least be a step in the right direction?

Answers contributed by PNHP Board members Dr. Andy Coates and Dr. Don McCanne

Answer by Dr. Andy Coates

"I am not convinced that it is fair to call the “public plan option” (aka Jacob Hacker’s proposal) “a move in the right direction.”

In the best case scenario this proposal would, I believe, accelerate the trend toward two-tiered care in our country. But we should recognize first that MoveOn and its friends are suggesting scenarios, not backing a specific proposal. The “public plan option,” as yet, amounts to no more than talking points.."

[PassingFair]

33. Hell, we already have "tiered care" in our country.

All, Some and NONE.

[slipslidingaway]

34. True except that this could be after HC reform is passed :(( n/t

[slipslidingaway]

32. Senator Baucus - "... single pay system, public option..."

the lines are being blurred between the two different options.

:(

At the 4:45 mark

Senate Health Care Hearing Starts off In Protest!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xntn4Zv17oc

[Kitty Herder]

35. If the private plans were maintained, there would be more than one payer.

So by definition, such a plan could not be called single-payer. That's not to say it couldn't work if it were done right, but I have my doubts. It could lead to inequalities in care as great as those we have now.

[slipslidingaway]

36. kick for more votes n/t

[slipslidingaway]

37. k nt