Comments on: FDL Action: Let’s Whip the Public Plan!

By: nrafter530

nrafter530 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:42:14 +0000

I think the possibility exists that if 40 progressives vote no on a Conrad proposal, 40 Republicans may switch to yes just to let is pass and say “We were involved in bipartisan reform and the liberals weren’t”

The risk is there, but like I said, politics isn’t without it’s risks.

By: TheBigE

TheBigE — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:24:45 +0000

Jane,

I’ve been working on Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Phoenix Woman suggested I leave the link to my post asking people to call Sen. Klobuchar.

http://www.mnprogressiveprojec.....lic-option

I don’t know if you have a Senate thread or not.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:14:22 +0000

If we prevent insurers from interfering it should actually speed up care here in America. Less paperwork and interference has to go faster.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:12:59 +0000

There’s only the same doctors we have (and are producing) today. The House bill provides for more money for medical school slots, but they’ll be educated by the same institutions. The public option only insurance insurance, not the care part.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:09:49 +0000

That’s where it matters how they define the gov’t public option. If it is comparable to private insurers, then without the need for profit it would have a considerable advantage. If the plan is limited to a bare-bones basic plan then the field will still be largely open to private insurers who will want to offer a variety of plans.

In the House bill I think the public option is described as ‘basic’. If the Senate isn’t secure with that wording they can add something more explicit to prevent it becoming a hydra.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:05:46 +0000

I don’t think the House bill has anything like that. If I remember right it does have one interesting state-related idea, that the Exchange can be run by a state for it’s in-state insurers. I’m not clear on the advantage of that, but it’s an option they’ll have.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:04:05 +0000

Hopefully the final product will prevent ANY insurers (private or gov’t) from interfering with the patient-doctor relationship. We really need them to butt out to simplify the life of everyone and for the system to save money (on insurance doctors and paperwork people).

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:01:47 +0000

I think a public option doesn’t kill a bill if it also includes the Exchange (marketplace) to assist the uninsured (some of whom will pick private insurers) and an employer mandate which will insure more individuals (insurers will love that).

As with any kind of legislation which is complicated the devil is in the details.

I think the House bill is pretty good and the Senate will probably make it even better. But first, as you indicate, let’s get the House bill passed!

By: DeadLast

DeadLast — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:17:25 +0000

This one needs to go national. Once it is off the ground, you need to team with Huffington Post to get the widest broadcast. It will be a “winner” for the repugs to vote no time and again, further alienating 70% of the population.

Of course, the one flaw is that 40 dems can crumbel, come out and say “absolutely not” to any public health care plan, in which case they effectively join the party of Bush and Nixon.

By: Valley Girl

Valley Girl — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:26:47 +0000

Aha! I noted the same thing, with the same question- why isn’t he on the list, and sent an email to Eric Massa (or staff?) with links from FDL (same question). !