Home | About | Donate

It's Time: Broad Progressive Coalition Launches New Push for Public Option


It's Time: Broad Progressive Coalition Launches New Push for Public Option

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

In what's being described as a "2016 debate changer," a broad coalition of progressive lawmakers and organizations is launching on Thursday a new push for a national public health insurance option.


Put all of this effort into getting Medicare for all passed.

This looks like another smokescreen perpetrated on the Left by corrupt politicians for the purpose of misdirection.
Politicians are slick and woefully dishonest people.


I seem to remember President Obama making a promise during his first run for president, that he would not sign a healthcare plan into law without a public option.Hmm,what did happen to that?


All the familiar names again, the guys and gals whose timing is impeccable. Smacks of staged, planned political strategy, as always.

The nation's health is being used as a political chip to win votes for a loser of a candidate who insists that incremental change is best for all things related to the little, insignificant people.

Oh, and incidentally: I won't be watching the debates between the two corporate-party candidates. It's not worth my time to listen to the corporate sponsored hog-snot of these parties and the losers they've tasked us to choose from.


The corporate types must be laughing deliriously that the scam has been perpetrated for so long. The oxymoron of 'health insurance' for profit has had a long run, but its premise is fundamentally one based on the perverted perspective of 'manifest destiny'. The entire planet is facing the aggregate 'failure of success' of the ideologues long spewing their venom, smoke and mirrors and rhetoric.

Our freedoms is why "they" hate us. BUT - you shall not have any choices of your own insofar as the property of your body, which is owned, by law, and from which value is taken by those licensed/approved by corporate law. Among those with a right to a pound of your flesh is the "insurance industry"- and YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to deny their not God given, but government granted right to extract that from you for their "profit". You may 'own' (be of the ownership class) as long as you grant your very life and possessions to ownership by the next level over you in the pyramid scheme.

What in heavens name would happen to the beloved (ahem) pyramid scheme, known as "capitalism/privatization/globalization/fascism, I ask you? It would only crumble a tiny bit faster while alternative methodologies arise. "Purist" capitalism is today fascism and the private security (as seen at Standing Rock) is poised and ready to enforce the 'take-the-pound-of-flesh-pyramid. Why are those private security companies (with "skin in the game") proliferating? Because the upper levels of the pyramid scheme DO NOT WANT THE HISTORY of abrogation of contracts (treaties) with native peoples known. They have been the body (on reserve/held in reservations) for extraction from which "externalized cost" have been MASSIVELY used and that can no longer be extracted from without the "plausible deniability" laid bare for all to see. Instead, maybe its 4ozs of flesh taken from a broader base instead of the royal pound from the indigenous peoples. Either way, the false dichotomies are coming off the media production lines faster than GMO pollen in the air.
Is it coincidence that Bayer wants Monsanto at this particular point in time ??? Ooops, sorry. Other aspects of life are completely separate from all other aspects of life. How silly of me.


The only worthwhile public option is to put all the health "care" insurers out of business and establish Single-payer system. This is a good step toward socializing medicine.


Blurose, please note that Improved Medicare for All is what is being advocated--Single-Payer, no co-pays, no deductibles.



Yawn. The Democrats didn't do this when they controlled the government 2009-2011. And they aren't going for single payer, which is the only way to solve the terrible problems with healthcare in this country.

Stuff like this makes me realize how suckered I was by Bernie.


This "big push" for the Public Option by the "progressive coalition" is actually all that remains of SERIOUS Single-Payer effort of the Sanders campaign which Democrats rejected in their platform committee, before tossing Bernie under the bus.

The REAL push for Single-Payer — which a large majority of Americans want — continues only in the Stein campaign.
... Ahh, but let's ignore that majority ... it smacks of democracy at work.

While a poor second, this would work to some degree, but still remains a cowardly exhibition of Democrats fearing to face-off with the Health Insurance industry which funds them. It is putting that industry ahead of the People, an all-too-typical feature of America's so-called progressive community.

This effort, which is better than nothing, is just one more in a list of compromises with the oligarchic rulers with which Dems have patiently trained our so-called "left" voters over the decades. At best, it is typical of their efforts at pseudo-PR-democracy, and NOT the game-changer this nation needs.


I had that impression myself. It's terrible to be so cynical. But it definitely has the flavor of uh-oh we need to do something to give a little, but retain the insurance industry, and give the impression that Democrats really are on the peoples' side. Undercut Jill Stein's message. Incremental, in Hillary-speech.


Great comment. I'm a physician and am very clear that many of my colleagues opt out of obamacare. This translates into trying to refer patients to see a cardioligist, oncologist, rheumatologist - but many times, they don't accept obamacare. Of, if they do accept it, it's a 6 month or more wait. So yes, they not only have to cover everyone, they also need to have basic standards of care, AND pay enough. If they are not paying enough, then providers will be hard pressed to pay the overhead of running a clinic. Anyway, yes for universal care, yes for better medicare, and yes for Jill Stein 2016


Attempts at Nationalized Health Care (NHC) such as President Truman's were blocked by the AMA. It seems the AMA is always present to block any attempts at NHC. How does this country solve this problem of neutralizing the AMA, so we can bring NHC to the people?


In a nano-second.


"Ccynical," I prefer the word realist.


I'm not sure why I ended up watching, but I saw part of a House hearing on Obamacare (the ACA) on C-Span the other day. There was a panel from HHS and other healthcare advocates in the admin being grilled by Repubs. The repubs were ripping the ACA all the things wrong with it - and there are many problems - (1) huge projected increases in premiums for many states (including the red ones that many of these repubs come from) for 2017; (2) the fact that many of the insured still cannot afford to pay for healthcare even if the have insurance because of high deductibles; (3) the fact that fewer of the previously uninsured are able to get insurance through the ACA; (4) that insurance companies are losing their shirts and thus they are being forced to leave the ACA..

I can attest to some of the problems with the ACA firsthand. But what repubs were not saying is that (1) part of the reason there are fewer insured is that their states have NOT accepted Medicaid expansion, (2) that the premiums are rapidly increasing on the exchanges despite raking in millions straight from the government which means the tax payers;(3) that the ACA is a crappy republican idea.

Then we get Dems defending the ACA despite mounting evidence that it is not working, much perhaps due to repubs in states not putting in place all of its features and insurance companies desire that the marketplace fails. But unfortunately, the Dems arguments in defense are weak and designed not to aid the people, but to protect Obama and themselves as the ones who put it into place..

Then we hear from repubs again that the ACA has to be scrapped and what is they want to put in its place -free market solutions. The only thing that makes the ACA palatable at all is that people on the exchanges can get insurance subsidized. The plans are generally crappy or super expensive (by design by the insurance companies), but at least more affordable. But repubs want to take the subsidies away - yes that will make health insurance affordable!

Let's face it, the system is a mess and needs to be replaced by single-payer medicare for all.


Write to the "fine folks" at info@boldprogressives.org and tell them -- NOT GOOD ENOUGH!


It would be useful to point out that this is not a call for universal health care -- much less, equal access to comprehensive health care. After all, it would make no sense to provide equal health to our poor, just to dump them back on the streets. Deprivation of adequate food and shelter take a very heavy toll on people's health.


During the primary season, I'll-be-any-flavor-you-want Hillary was against single payer:

[[ We share the goal of universal health care coverage. But I think the people deserve to know how this would work. If it's Medicare for all, then you no longer have the Affordable Care Act, because the Affordable Care Act is based on the insurance system. So if you're having single-payer, you need to level with people about what they will have at the end of the process. Based on every analysis I can find, the numbers don't add up, and many people will be worse off than they are now. (2/11/6) ]]

Then, later in May,

[[ “I’m also in favor of what’s called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age,” Mrs. Clinton said on Monday at a campaign event in Virginia. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-health-care-public-option.html?_r=0) ]]

Should she land in the White House, and feel the weight of the army of industry lobbyists, i'd bet good money she finds some new reason why even a public options would not be such a good idea.


Britain managed it in 1948. Nationalised the health system and told those doctors who didn't like it that they could leave and go to the USA. Sorry about that, chaps; you lot got the rough end of the stick.


Medicare looks good only because the alternatives are so bad. Had Obama simply expanded Medicare eligibility to Murkins over 55 it would have been light years better than the ACA and the GOP would not have subsequently taken control of Congress so easily.

If you demand a mile you will end up with a yard. If you demand an inch, you will get nothing. Demanding a public option is tantamount to demanding the inch that public option supporters realize will net nothing for the 99%. Demanding expanded Medicare is like demanding a yard and you may end up with an inch. Demanding Canadian style single payer is the mile we need to demand so we might at least end up with something better than Medicare.