• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Progressives, Activists Plan Big Public Option Push

Greenbeard

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,231
Reaction score
21,631
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Twenty-seven Senate Dems, including the potential Majority Leader-in-waiting, indicated where they would be spending some of their political capital, should they win back the chamber and if Hillary wins the presidency:

Senate Progressives, Activists Plan Big Public Option Push
WASHINGTON ― Progressive senators and liberal activist groups plan a renewed effort to achieve what they couldn’t when the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010: Create a “public option” health plan in Obamacare that consumers can choose instead of private insurance.
Click to expand...
The revival of the public option comes after Clinton and President Barack Obama both endorsed it as a progressive priority this summer, more than six years after liberal lawmakers left it out of the Affordable Care Act after a lengthy debate.
Click to expand...
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee also has partnered with other groups to generate support for enacting a public option next year, including MoveOn.org and Democracy for America. These organizations will create a petition for supporters to express their views at a new website, WeWantAPublicOption.com.

“We see this as the most significant health care push by Democrats since the passage of Obamacare,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor said in a written statement.
Click to expand...

If I were planning an all-out legislative blitz to try and get something through to shore up the ACA, I'm not sure the public option would be where I focus my energy at this point.
 
This was the plan all along.

That's why I joined a private plan with doctors and specialists in my area who got out of the public healthcare network altogether and built a privately shared family group.

The public option is where the "C" medical students will end up.

In other words, those patients will still go to "The Clinic".

There's so many better ways to get quality healthcare to folks. But that's not politically advantageous to Democrats.
 
Greenbeard said:
Twenty-seven Senate Dems, including the potential Majority Leader-in-waiting, indicated where they would be spending some of their political capital, should they win back the chamber and if Hillary wins the presidency:

Senate Progressives, Activists Plan Big Public Option Push




If I were planning an all-out legislative blitz to try and get something through to shore up the ACA, I'm not sure the public option would be where I focus my energy at this point.
Click to expand...

The public option is the only one with which one can hide the depth of the problems. The government's pockets are deep enough to obfuscate the non-sustainability and letting ACA take its course now, which would be desasterous for the Democrats.
 
ObamaCare is collapsing, and the Dems are scared ****less from a disgruntled and disillusioned electorate which will blame them for it, most appropriately no less. The Dems are wanting to stay in power and in office, to continue their 'fundamental transformation of America' (read destruction).
 
Erod said:
The public option is where the "C" medical students will end up.

In other words, those patients will still go to "The Clinic".
Click to expand...

A public option would be another insurance option available for purchase in the market. If it's offering an inferior or less desirable product than private sector competitors, then it doesn't gain market share. If it's offering what people want to a greater degree than its competitors, then it will gain. Unless you're suggesting our understanding of how consumers make decisions in a market is about to radically change.

joG said:
The public option is the only one with which one can hide the depth of the problems. The government's pockets are deep enough to obfuscate the non-sustainability and letting ACA take its course now, which would be desasterous for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're understanding how a public option would work.
 
Greenbeard said:
A public option would be another insurance option available for purchase in the market. If it's offering an inferior or less desirable product than private sector competitors, then it doesn't gain market share. If it's offering what people want to a greater degree than its competitors, then it will gain. Unless you're suggesting our understanding of how consumers make decisions in a market is about to radically change.



I don't think you're understanding how a public option would work.
Click to expand...

If it competes without being subsidized sure.
I highly doubt this public option, would be the case.

There are better alternatives than this.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If it competes without being subsidized sure.
I highly doubt this public option, would be the case.

There are better alternatives than this.
Click to expand...

The public option is limited to the exchanges (which is part of the reason it's not likely to make that big a splash). Every insurer selling in the exchange ultimately gets subsidies because individual people below a certain income get a premium subsidy that they take with them to whichever insurer they choose. A public option wouldn't get any extra money unavailable to any other insurer in the exchanges, other than start-up capital to actually open its doors.
 
Greenbeard said:
The public option is limited to the exchanges (which is part of the reason it's not likely to make that big a splash). Every insurer selling in the exchange ultimately gets subsidies because individual people below a certain income get a premium subsidy that they take with them to whichever insurer they choose. A public option wouldn't get any extra money unavailable to any other insurer in the exchanges, other than start-up capital to actually open its doors.
Click to expand...

First off, this entire show is not a serious attempt, but to draw millennials into voting for Hillary.
Secondly, the entire PPACA is a **** show, that didn't address the other fundamental problems with the medical system.
Thirdly, if you want to do a real hybrid system, you'd cover inelastic medical needs with UHC and let elastic be left to the market place.

That's just in very broad terms.
 
Greenbeard said:
Twenty-seven Senate Dems, including the potential Majority Leader-in-waiting, indicated where they would be spending some of their political capital, should they win back the chamber and if Hillary wins the presidency:

Senate Progressives, Activists Plan Big Public Option Push




If I were planning an all-out legislative blitz to try and get something through to shore up the ACA, I'm not sure the public option would be where I focus my energy at this point.
Click to expand...
Its a good political move to try and get back the disenfranchised bernie supporters. They will return to reservation and hold their noses as they vote clinton knowing they will get theor public option.

This is the lesson the the gop does not seem to comphrehend and why they are stuck with trump as their nominee. They have betrayed their base and never offer anything to passify them and now the base is ignoring them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Greenbeard said:
The public option is limited to the exchanges (which is part of the reason it's not likely to make that big a splash). Every insurer selling in the exchange ultimately gets subsidies because individual people below a certain income get a premium subsidy that they take with them to whichever insurer they choose. A public option wouldn't get any extra money unavailable to any other insurer in the exchanges, other than start-up capital to actually open its doors.
Click to expand...
Im a little tored of people on the left beating this same old tired drum of how it wont lead to the obvious and predictable concerns of people.

6 short years ago aca was not going to lead to a public option, it wasnt going to include illegals and it was going to drive everyones premiums down and now here we are. Why is anyone going to be believe its not going to lead us down the obvious path of the gov footing more and more of the bill?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Greenbeard said:
A public option would be another insurance option available for purchase in the market. If it's offering an inferior or less desirable product than private sector competitors, then it doesn't gain market share. If it's offering what people want to a greater degree than its competitors, then it will gain. Unless you're suggesting our understanding of how consumers make decisions in a market is about to radically change.
Click to expand...

Will only participants in the public option pay for the public option?
 
jmotivator said:
Will only participants in the public option pay for the public option?
Click to expand...
What they say today wont be what they say tomorrow so it does not really matter.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
6 short years ago aca was not going to lead to a public option, it wasnt going to include illegals and it was going to drive everyones premiums down and now here we are. Why is anyone going to be believe its not going to lead us down the obvious path of the gov footing more and more of the bill?
Click to expand...

Six years ago the ACA contained a public option. It was stripped out toward the end of the legislative process and replaced with seed money for new private insurers, non-profit coops. The coops have not succeeded. Hence the return here to the original idea.
 
Greenbeard said:
A public option would be another insurance option available for purchase in the market. If it's offering an inferior or less desirable product than private sector competitors, then it doesn't gain market share. If it's offering what people want to a greater degree than its competitors, then it will gain. Unless you're suggesting our understanding of how consumers make decisions in a market is about to radically change.



I don't think you're understanding how a public option would work.
Click to expand...

I suspect along the lines of one of the social democracies. They've been experimenting with them for decades and tried many different models. That is why I said, what I did.
 
jmotivator said:
Will only participants in the public option pay for the public option?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the concept of a public option. It's just an insurance company.

When the House passed a public option in 2009, it was legally required to set premiums adequate to finance all benefit payments, all administrative costs, as well as an actuarially appropriate contingency margin.

(a) Establishment Of Premiums.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option—

(A) in a manner that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 213 for Exchange-participating health benefits plans; and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of—

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.​

(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an appropriate amount for a contingency margin (which shall be not less than 90 days of estimated claims). Before setting such appropriate amount for years starting with Y3, the Secretary shall solicit a recommendation on such amount from the American Academy of Actuaries.
Click to expand...
 
Greenbeard said:
A public option would be another insurance option available for purchase in the market. If it's offering an inferior or less desirable product than private sector competitors, then it doesn't gain market share. If it's offering what people want to a greater degree than its competitors, then it will gain. Unless you're suggesting our understanding of how consumers make decisions in a market is about to radically change.



I don't think you're understanding how a public option would work.
Click to expand...

We know you don't Doctor are already dropping Medicare and more largely Medicaid
Due to the reduction of pay. It costs them more to treat than the government gets back.

Every time I call a doctor to see if they take my insurance they go do you have Medicaid?
We don't accept that.

So why should doctors take the public option? They have already been suckered by the Ava
There is no reason they would be suckered again.
 
Greenbeard said:
Six years ago the ACA contained a public option. It was stripped out toward the end of the legislative process and replaced with seed money for new private insurers, non-profit coops. The coops have not succeeded. Hence the return here to the original idea.
Click to expand...

The entire a a is falling apart. The real push is for single payer which would destroy the healthcare system entirely.
Don't believe me look at the VA. Sorry I value my health more than what liberals value theirs.
 
Greenbeard said:
Because it would pay more than Medicaid.
Click to expand...

It can't if it is going to stay viable and not suck more dollars out than in.
The public option was going to be designed to lcd and force private insurance companies out of business.
The entire a a was designed that way, but insurance companies pulled out as they would after the government quit paying their losses.
 
jmotivator said:
Will only participants in the public option pay for the public option?
Click to expand...

No not at all. We will be paying for it. There hasn't been a government program yet that liberals propose that doesn't take dollars out of my pocket and give to someone else.

I think the DNC. Needs a new motto. The most charitable organization out there with other people money you can find.
 
ludin said:
It can't if it is going to stay viable and not suck more dollars out than in.
Click to expand...

Of course it can. You don't think an insurance company can have reimbursements higher than Medicaid rates and stay viable?

Negotiate rates. Set premiums to cover benefit costs associated with said rates and the health status of the enrolled population. This isn't rocket science. Nor is it different than the process any insurer selling in the individual market goes through.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm.... Admitting that the current public option, Medicaid, is not good? ;)
Click to expand...

Medicaid isn't a public option. It's not an option in the insurance market, nor is it even public at this point (it's mostly privatized today). And it should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't, that these concepts are financed entirely differently.

How does no one understand this concept?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom