Wouldn't it make sense to at least include an embryonic PO in this bill

[Vinnie From Indy]

If we are to believe the message that this HCR bill is simply the foundation from which to build, would it not have been much more believable if there were actually something to build upon? A small PO restricted to a few at first could have been expanded. Can we progressives get at least a piece of gristle or bone from the carcass of HCR?

[tridim]

1. Embryonic single-payer is in this bill.

As well as a non-profit option in the exchange.

[Vinnie From Indy]

I stand corrected!

Cheers!

[enlightenment]

11. Don't cheer too quickly . . .

tridem is doing a bit of word parsing by suggesting that a non-profit is included - it would be more accurate to say that the concept for non-profits are included . . . dependent on the will of the individual States, that may or may not allow them.

It does say that CO-OPs are not excluded from the Exchanges (note the plural - the Exchanges will be run by the States, not by the Fed):

Section 1301:
(2) INCLUSION OF CO-OP PLANS AND COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION- Any reference in this title to a qualified health plan shall be deemed to include a qualified health plan offered through the CO-OP program under section 1322 or a community health insurance option under section 1323, unless specifically provided for otherwise.

Section 1322 deals directly with the establishment of CO-OP programs within the States. It does not say that States have to do this - it simply establishes some broad ground rules to facilitate doing it. Note the line that allows the States to refuse to allow CO-OPs ("in States where the issuers are licensed to offer such plans")

SEC. 1322. FEDERAL PROGRAM TO ASSIST ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF NONPROFIT, MEMBER-RUN HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUERS.

(a) Establishment of Program-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish a program to carry out the purposes of this section to be known as the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program.
(2) PURPOSE- It is the purpose of the CO-OP program to foster the creation of qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers to offer qualified health plans in the individual and small group markets in the States in which the issuers are licensed to offer such plans.

But please don't take my word for it - or the word of anyone else. Read those sections for yourself (and section 1323, which talks about the Community Health plans. That one has a clear State opt-out provision).

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:1073

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Where? nt

[tridim]

5. In the Bill. Read it.

[Cleobulus]

7. You made an assertion, prove it. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Technically, medicare is "embryonic single-payer" but it is in the process

of being aborted by the insurance companies and this bill.

This bill weakens large market consumers, meaning employer based coverage, as the penalties for not providing insurance are far less costly than the coverage itself. A result of this will be coverage will devolve to 'individual choice' which sounds good as a sound bite, but in reality is equivalent to the dismantling of the unions - removing the power of collective bargaining, leaving each individual to negotiate separately with multi-billion dollar corporations. Think there's any way THAT will lead to single payer?

You are delusional.

[Fumesucker]

2. Public funds may not be used for abortions..

And if there were an embryonic PO it would have to be aborted..

/snark

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Non-profits are a good way to handle mandates, and are used successfully...

in other countries. But it is not a "public option." I would like to see a Medicare buy in plan where people under the age of retirement could purchase Medicare just as other people purchase health insurance. A public option requires a system that is funded publicly.

Blue Cross Blue Shield began as non-profits, and still have non-profit plans in their offerings.

[gateley]

6. WHY isn't anything happening with Grayson's buy-in proposal -- do you know?

I think this would garner wide-spread public support, and the Reps would HAVE to support it, there's no way they could paint this negatively to their constituents.

I'm already so over the HCR that's currently the offering, I'm waiting for THIS. Do you think it has legs? :hi:

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Haven't heard, and the current fight is sucking the oxygen out of everything else.

After Sunday we should get a clearer idea of where that bill is going in the house, and whether anyone in the Senate is trying a similar bill.

[gateley]

10. In another post I came to that same conclusion (though not stated as succinctly

as you did). This would probably be the wrong time to throw another wrench into the works. These folks deserve a breather, too - they've been fighting so hard. So I'll wait until Monday, maybe Tuesday, before I start demanding answers. :7 :hi:

[Better Believe It]

12. Won't happen. The insurance industry doesn't want that and this is their bill.