Home | About | Donate

The Public Option – Doomed From the Start


Agree 100%. Back when I thought Dean was a decent person, he used to make this point about Vermont’s program for children’s health care (http://www.vpr.net/episode/44212/howard-dean-vermont-years/) - there were no income cut offs precisely because he wanted to get the support of everybody in Vermont for the program and he claimed that even rich people after they used the program would say how important they thought it was.

We can get rid of Medicaid and any stigma for it when we implement Medicare for All.


“The big problem with single payer…”

The big problem with LRX is that it spouts nothing but the proven loser corporate-sold out Democratic Party party line.


Profits (usually obscene profits) by corporate pirates/criminals have no place in a nations health care system (or education) - unless that’s not the intention of TPTB at all. The health “care” parasites must be driven from the temple of Hippocrates. We have become one nation under Mammon - Vulture capitalism preying on the 99% - the most vulnerable, with no liberty, or justice (except the wealthy), just profits above all else - citizens become wage and interest slaves from cradle to grave - profits uber alles.

Universal not-for-profit health care is a human right, not privilege of wealth!


Its not “politically feasible” because they are getting way too much money from the insurance industry.Its called BRIBES!


The original idea of a public option back in 2008-2010 was a bait and switch done by the NeoLiberal Democrats on the progressives in the party they needed to go along with their Heritage Foundation plan.

The public option was first sold to us during the campaign as a sneaky way of evolving to Single Payer. So we were told supporting Obama’s plans was really a way of supporting Single Payer, since we couldn’t just do Single Payer, we could support Obamacare and with a Public Option make it so it would become Single Payer.

But then Obama pulled the rug out from under us.

He kept telling us in every speech that he was for a Public Option because it was the best way to keep costs down and if anyone could come up with a better solution they should tell him. But in reality he’d already made back room deals to kill it.

Now one trick they did back then was say they needed a plan that would get Republican support. This is when they had a super majority in the Senate. Well, they never did get a single Republican, so any corporate friendly aspects of Obamacare were entirely there because the Democrats wanted it.

Then they started playing this game that they needed every Democratic vote and several conservatives, like the turncoat, lying, horrid, warmongering Liebermann, just refused to go along. Meanwhile progressives, instead of campaigning for Single Payer, were putting all their energy into getting the votes lined up for the public option in the Senate bill.

I remember. I was one of those this trick worked on. I was following the news closely and cheering as progressives built up the count. I remember we were almost there.

That’s when Obama pulled the rug out from under us. They did an end run around the public option and had a vote on Obamacare without it and didn’t need to worry about a super majority because they used a trick where a bill only needed a majority to pass but only one bill a year could be done this way. (I forget the name of this kind of bill, I knew it when I started this comment. LOL )

But here’s the deal. We already had enough votes to pass it with the public option if all that was needed was a simple majority. But that’s not the bill that was given and it was the only chance- because it couldn’t be done again.

Now, years later, I realize the public option wasn’t even a good idea in the first place. You see one of the things about Obamacare was that providers could refuse to accept public option patients. This would mean that public option people wouldn’t have any doctors take them precisely because the public option would pay less (supposed to keep costs down, which it wouldn’t since it really wouldn’t be a factor because doctors would all refuse it.) So public option people would still only have a few low income clinics and emergency rooms for their care (which they already had.)


I’m all for Medicare-For-All. However, my benefits advisor at work told me that in Japan most people by supplemental policies to cover lost work time, continuing homecare, deductibles and co-pays and even other expenses like rent and car payments.
Is it only wealthier people who’ll have these options or will Medicare-For-All take these types of insurance supplementals into account? When a health crisis occurs, life continues to happen, especially bills.
Does Medicare-For-All address this?


Its kind of strange to say something can’t work that doesn’t exist.I support the three proposals put forward by Sen Sanders to move toward a single payer system. People need to remember that social security started out as a plan to help widows. And the point is -is that Sanders continues to try and move the ball.

I want to thank Al Gore for what he said the other day. I listen to Trump and Republicans continue their talking point that “Obamacare has failed”. AND THE TRUTH IS THAT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS FAILED! Many people would rather take a penalty$$$$ and not buy insurance. These insurance companies have pulled out of states unable to do their job. Insurance companies are great at offering health insurance to companies that are subsidized by the government. This is something that gets little discussion,really no discussion,how companies get tax cuts by giving health insurance.The private insurance industry works when offering insurance to healthy people.

We need to really start saying what is going on here----BRIBES----How long will these democrats and republicans get away with murder for profit.


Even without the public option it was very difficult to the pass the ACA. Harry Reid did some crazy stuff with Senate rules to get it passed. And as I remember they promised all sorts of things to some moderate Democrats to get their votes. I don’t think the Democrats were pretending to be for the public option, I think many actually supported it but then it became apparent that the only way to pass the bill was to remove it. The Senate works by compromise. That was a compromise. Some people who post comments would never compromise but they aren’t in office. And what is a corporate Democrat? Someone who accepts campaign money from corporations? That is about all Democrats who hold office. So why don’t you just call them Democrats. And how would they have enough money to win without accepting that money? How many Democrats in contested races have accomplished that?


With the collapse of the dismal Republican healthcare bill, some Democrats are reviving talk of a public option as the cure for the holes in the Affordable Care Act that opened the door for the GOP attack.

Hey, RoseAnn, this also includes your buddy, Bernie Sanders. As recently as late June of this year, he’s stated that he supports “improving” Obamacare with a public option as a short term solution prior to pushing for single payer. Might want to visit with him on this. Fixing Obamacare may or may not be the best strategy, but if the public option is as much of a scam as you say it is, Democrats need to try other fixes.


Yup, here is LRX telling us that the only thing we can do is support corporate-sold out Democrats.


Demorats will try to coopt the surge for “single payer” (see Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr.), only to “pragmatically” offer this “public option” in the end.

We’ve seen this movie so many times

And damn us if we can’t recall the ending.


Using Medicaid as the public option would have worked. Average cost for an adult over most of the country would run about $300 a month. Medicaid as a rule doesn’t have deductibles or co-pays. Although this might change if it was to become the “public option” for people otherwise ineligible for Medicaid.


I agree 100 percent. But can someone explain to me ( so I can explain to others) why we must use the term “human right” in regards to health care? I think we progressives shoot ourselves in the foot when we insist on that. Wouldn’t we make better traction with the other side if we call access to good healthcare a “privilege of citizenship” or “a benefit to the whole country” or “a marker of an evolved society”? The other side can get the concept that water and air should be available to all humans, but I can’t get them to accept health care as a human right.


Ann, You may find some of your questions answered if you watch Michael Moores movie, “Where to Invade Next.”


Well it isn’t a non-human right. Nobody is saying if your dog gets sick, you can go to the vet and not worry about the bill. As far as a citizenship only right, I don’t think anybody’s talking about excluding permanent residents, though I agree that we probably need to think about tourists and how they would interact with our future healthcare system. I’d have to look into how this works in other Single Payer countries or Socialized Medicine countries before I had a strong opinion.

I think the key to getting enough on the other side to go along with it is to not get hung up on semantics - don’t call it a right if you like when you are discussing it - it’s enough to cover the pragmatics only - we will spend less money (most of us - some rich people will spend more) and we will get better health metrics.

Stick with facts and forget the semantics. You might find this piece useful: http://theweek.com/articles/695767/conservative-case-singlepayer-health-care. Good luck (I’m in the same boat with almost no co-workers being for it).


It shouldn’t have to be explained to anyone in a civil society why access to health care is not a privilege, it is a basic human need. However, medicare is a paid for benefit. American workers made 7.2 trillion dollars in wages and paid 1.45% of that to Medicare, employers matched that making the total contribution 2.9%. You are getting something you paid for all your life if you worked and earned wages, with some exceptions.


As I remember, Bernie Sanders was unable to identify any vote by Hillary Clinton that was determined by corporate campaign contributions. There is a difference between accepting corporate contributions and selling out. One does not necessarily follow from the other. Corporations can give money simply because they agree with the candidate although usually I would say it it so the candidate will listen to their side. But politicians will not necessarily vote the way the corporation wants. So calling everyone who accepts corporate money sell outs is not accurate. Basically it simply more name calling. I think campaign contributions give access but in many instances that may be all.


Well that works for those following the outside strategy (they’ve given up on the Democrats), but not the inside strategy (primaring Corporate Democrats). It’s true that there aren’t many non-Corporate Democrats just yet, but I think Bernie showed that the strategy can be practical: 1) regular people will give more money to someone who is their guy and not someone beholden to corporations (and I’ve read Unruh’s quote on taking lobbyist money and voting against them and that’s just moronic - nobody gives money to someone that isn’t acting in their interest - whether the money sways your opinion or just makes it more likely you’ll funnel past others with different opinions is immaterial). 2) regular people will have a lot more respect for you and are more likely to get off their ass and vote for you if you are not a corrupt politician.

As far as a good compromise goes, I don’t think that is off the table for a Justice Democrat (or whatever other label becomes the fashion) if it makes sense. After Trump was elected, the best answer I heard from an Democrat or Independent on moving forward was from Sanders who said:

Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”

I’m with him. To the degree that any Republican wants to propose something that actually makes sense (some traditionally conservative ideas aren’t that bad), then I’d want a politician who was willing to talk and even compromise - as long as they are coming from a viewpoint where they are trying to improve things for all of us and not just a particular corporation.


The “public option” — a desperation move for Oligarchs within the DEMS.

Single-Payer promotes empowerment of the 99% … and functional democracy. Dems … don’t!

Read: “Single-Payer: Effective and Affordable … so what’s the problem?”


The War on Democracy: the REAL reason Oligarchs hate universal healthcare.

Single-Payer promotes empowerment of the 99% … and an improved democracy in the U.S.
Dems … don’t!

Read: “Single-Payer: Effective and Affordable … so what’s the problem?”