Note to Dems: Americans want public option

by Jay McDonough

Via Greg Sargent comes news of a memo being issued this morning to Congressional Democrats that spells out pretty clearly that Americans want a public option included in the final health care reform bill that emerges (hopefully) from Congress.  Included in the memo is a summary of various polling surveys assessing the publics desire for a government sponsored insurance plan.

 

Note to Congressional Democrats: Is this not clear enough?  Just grow a spine and get it done please.

Comments

[Russ Wellen]

Though this, from FiveThirtyEight, is troubling: Poll: Most Don't Know What "Public Option" Is -- Including Pollsters. Excerpt:

A new survey by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates for the AARP reveals widespread uncertainty about the nature of the "public option" -- a government-run health insurance policy that would be offered along with private policies in the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Just 37 percent of the poll's respondents correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices provided to them.

[Jay McDonough]

Russ,

I saw that as well. This whole health care debate has exposed an ugly truth about the process; it's full of craven ideologues who could give a shit about truth and facts and a depressingly large group of numbskull citizens who will believe whatever they're told.

I guess that leaves two more groups; those that know the issues and can argue facts (whatever their ideology) and the rest who think the "public option" is somehow related to unisex restrooms.

[jacksmith]

NO CO-OP'S! A Little History Lesson

Young People. America needs your help.

More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% of republicans). Basically everyone.

According to a new AARP POLL: 86 percent of seniors want universal healthcare security for All, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. And 79% of seniors support creating a new strong Government-run public option plan, available immediately. Including 89% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans, STUNNING!! Senator Max Baucus, You better come out of committee with a strong government-run public option available on day one.

The History:

Our last great economic catastrophe was called the Great Depression. Then as now it was caused by a reckless, and corrupt Republican administration and republican congress. FDR a Democrat, was then elected to save the nation and the American people from the unbridled GREED and profiteering, of the unregulated predatory self-interest of the banking industry and Wallstreet. Just like now.

FDR proposed a Government-run health insurance plan to go with Social Security. To assure all Americans high quality, easily accessible, affordable, National Healthcare security. Regardless of where you lived, worked, or your ability to pay. But the AMA riled against it. Using all manor of scare tactics, like Calling it SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! :-0

So FDR established thousands of co-op's around the country in rural America. And all of them failed. The biggest of these co-op organizations would become the grandfather of the predatory monster that all of you know today as the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry. And the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry.

This former co-op would grow so powerful that it would corrupt every aspect of healthcare delivery in America. Even corrupting the Government of the United States.

This former co-op's name is BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD.

Do you see now why even the suggestion of co-op's is ridiculous. It makes me so ANGRY! Co-op's are not a substitute for a government-run public option.

They are trying to pull the wool over our eye's again. Senators, if you don't have the votes now, GET THEM! Or turn them over to us. WE WILL! DEAL WITH THEM. Why do you think we gave your party Control of the House, Control of the Senate, Control of the Whitehouse. The only option on the table that has any chance of fixing our healthcare crisis is a STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION.

An insurance mandate and subsidies without a strong government-run public option choice available on day one, would be worse than the healthcare catastrophe we have now. The insurance, and healthcare industry have been very successful at exploiting the good hearts of the American people. But Congress and the president must not let that happen this time. House Progressives and members of the Tri-caucus must continue to hold firm on their demand for a strong Government-run public option.

A healthcare reform bill with mandates and subsidies but without a STRONG government-run public option choice on day one, would be much worse than NO healthcare reform at all. So you must be strong and KILL IT! if you have too. And let the chips fall where they may. You can do insurance reform without mandates, subsidies, or taxpayer expense.

Actually, no tax payer funds should be use to subsidize any private for profit insurance plans. So, NO TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE FOR PROFIT PLANS. Tax payer funds should only be used to subsidize the public plans. Healthcare reform should be 100% for the American people. Not another taxpayer bailout of the private for profit insurance industry, disguised as healthcare reform for the people.

God Bless You

Jacksmith — Working Class

Twitter search #welovetheNHS #NHS Check it out

(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)

Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)

American HEROES!! :-) Click replay to play http://bit.ly/j31oU

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o) CYBER WARRIORS!! - TAKE THIS VIRAL

[John Ballard]

I have seen this copy/paste spam message before. Like those who clamor for the defeat of H.R.3200 and it's still-unborn offspring, the arguments here are misleading.

The history of the Blues is less dramatic and far less sinister. Blue Cross, introduced in the Thirties, was the first group insurance of any consequence and it was an employer-sponsored plan with two objects: offer employees a group insurance benefit for hospital bills (only) and to attract good employees from other companies that didn't have such a benefit.

When it was proposed the AMA was dead-set against it, fearing too much power would then reside in hospitals. The political remedy was that in return for allowing Blue Cross to come into being, ALL hospitals were required to be non-profit. (It worked. The first for-profit hospitals did not come about until the Sixties, but that's another tale.)

A few years later, Blue Shield came along, similar to Blue Cross, but this time the insurance was to cover not hospitals, but medical services. Again the AMA didn't want it, fearing price controls on their fees. This was not altogether crazy, since a few years earlier price controls had been in place during the Depression. Again there was a political remedy. This time group medical insurance for professional services (physicians) was allowed with the understanding that doctors and clinics could set whatever charges they wanted and there would be no interference from either government or the new group insurance.

Much has changed since the Thirties, but the biggest change of all was the creation of Medicare in 1964. It is no accident that Medicare is split in two parts. Part A (hospital charges) is modeled after the original Blue Cross, and Part B (services) after Blue Shield. And just like the Blues, Medicare has little or no leverage over what hospital and physicians charge for their services.

Over time a "reimbursement rate" has evolved, but it was and continues to be a pork item under the control of Congress. Rates are based partly on regional or geographic variations, but no one has figured a way to rectify the incredible variations in the system from one locality to another.

Dr. Gawande's Article in the June issue of the New Yorker outlines the madness of what has occurred over the years and a small part of what H.R.3200 is laying the groundwork to rectify is that very inequity.

During the Bush years an advisory group called MedPac was formed to look into this problem but it was neither adequately funded or given any authority. It has and continues to be an "advisory" group.

I think this (Republican, btw) invention may be the basis for what has come to be known as the "death panel". As I understand it, the proposed legislation builds on that very group, giving it wider scope of operation and authority to incentivise both hospitals and physician group to improve best practices in the direction of better outcomes AND lower costs at the same time.

Explaining the complexities of the legislation cannot be done in short sentences for adults with short attention spans. Understanding even the basics requires that the listener is able to grasp entire paragraphs and retain their meanings longer than a minute or two.

Unfortunately opponents have succeeded in gripping much of the population with a panic-threshold level of fear. Many otherwise intelligent people are now as terrified as children at Halloween, even though their fears are based on nothing more than smoke and spook-house mirrors.