The Public Option is Back

I agree that 1 & 2 are necessary, but these can be done without the unwanted and unpalatable Public Option. In fact, tying actual reform to the Public Option weakens the likelihood that any of it will pass.

This mechanism that will force most of the insured to fall under government provided insurance is distasteful to informed and aware taxpayers, and unwarranted beyond the need to tax individuals and employers to create another entitlement program primarily for those who won't pay into it, (or pay enough into it to match their expenses), making it an insolvent program from the start. Like Medicare, and Social Security.

Or worse, as solvent as the worst case scenario of health care coverage.

Here is a strange dynamic: a Humanist following a charitable philosophy, a Christian following the same philosophy, and a religious apologist (me) promoting a need for fiscal responsibility at the expense of charity.

At some point the desire to be nice and good falls under the logic of being practical.

Yes, there can be a parity between the two, and, considering the circumstances as they stand where no one is ever turned away for care in our country, perhaps that's already been met.

Mind you, in no plan is there a guarantee for an unlimited number of organs for everyone from Donald Trump to the unconscious, undocumented immigrant panhandler fresh out of federal prison.

And I contend that the Public Option, as a defacto mechanism for a single payer or government health care, actually puts the common standards for legal provision at risk.

Recently, I couldn't afford health care, so I didn't buy it. Under the public option, I, and others like me, would be BREAKING THE LAW. Worse, if we couldn't afford to buy health care, we would be FINED. What logic is there when, if we couldn't buy the healthcare, how could we afford the fine?

They have an answer for that: prison.

Or lower the standards by which I live. Fitting my family into a one bedroom house will make me more able to afford expenses the government choose for me to buy.

Yay, you go, Big Government!

Does this represent a trend? Maybe/maybe not. In the 90's we called the party in power the “tax and spend specialists.” I now do not believe that it's the Democrat's fault, but I think the party's leadership has been hijacked by a … what? I don't know. But they know what they want, and, so far, it's ballooning the National Debt.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (It's worth checking out, just so you can harmlessly simulate splashing McDonald's face melting hot coffee in your face.)

-=T=-

Wow … where to begin?

I'll limit myself to two main points in my reply:

(1) “Under the public option, I, and others like me, would be BREAKING THE LAW.”

The requirement that people have insurance has NOTHING to do with the public option. It's an entirely separate condition that is ABSOLUTELY required if we want to eliminate the pre-existing conditions clauses in health insurance. Otherwise, people would try to beat the system by not purchasing insurance (to save money) until they had a condition that they couldn't afford without insurance. This is clearly not fair to the insurance companies. So, I am absolutely in favor of requiring people to have health insurance (and I am absolutely in favor of having the government help those who honestly can't afford it).

(2) “But they know what they want, and, so far, it's ballooning the National Debt.”

Reform (WAY more than anything that has been discussed so far) is necessary to SAVE the nation significant money, but even the reforms that are under consideration will save money (if you believe the non-partisan number crunchers). So, the health insurance reform is not ballooning the National Debt.

On the other hand, the spending to stimulate the economy HAS ballooned the National Debt. I am not in favor of a larger debt, BUT .. this is exactly what needs to happen during a recession. Government spending stimulates the economy to lessen the recession and (one hopes) to bring us out of it. My understanding is that the general opinion of economists is that the stimulus was too small. It's during times of prosperity that there is NO EXCUSE for an expansion of the National Debt. We can check historical records to see when that has happened if you like (you seem to be blaming the Democrats, but that's not what the data shows).

RE: “1.” THIS Public Option has everything to do with the tax increases, fines, and penalties, including prison, associated with it since it is tied with the President's, and Pelosi's and Reid's, centralized focus for legislation.

And, to be clear, I'm not only trying to protect Steve and his family in White Suburbia, but Pedro's in the barrio, and Jamal's in the ghetto, (or any combination or mixture of each.) We will all be under these new conditions and punitive measures. If you believe that we all need help when we fall under an economic bracket, this is the wrong way to go about it, and the easy way to persecute already downtrodden demographics.

Like I mentioned, the Democrats aren't of a single hive mind, but it appears that their leadership has been hijacked. Those who find their good purposes not in line with the party's ultimate goals or overarching actions, and speak out and promote a common sense approach not only in dialogue and politics, but to lead their party in a better direction, I consider heroes. One such is Sen. Kratovil, a Democrat from Maryland, who exposed some measure of what is actually going on in this article:

( http://www.delmarvadealings.com/2010/01/19/krat… )

No, the National Debt isn't only the fault of the Democrats. Republicans that fall out of step with republican ethics have had their part, and these damned wars have also participated heavily as well. But, considering the place the country was in at the end of 2008, when plans were being drawn for spending, and all throughout 2009 in legislation, and now in 2010 when there is no slowing of the spending on programs that will do two things; first increase our debt, second create and demand a need to increase taxes, and third make way for further spending.

There is an ideal world where a properly written Public Option would be a logical conclusion. In this ideal world all utilities, (electricity, water, and telecom), would be government regulated and provided, and there would be no social class structure. This ideal world doesn't exist, as much as we would like it to, nor does this ideal world public option. Instead, we are left with this imposter legislation, at the wrong time to promote the furtherance of social programs, of increasing the burden of the government to provide what it's already shown it can't manage, and to obligate the American people into a real expense based on a ruse and fraudulent use of “public necessity”.

To put it bluntly, based on what's been touted in the media on both sides as the merits and considerations of the President's Health Care Reform, THIS Public Option probably isn't YOUR Public Option. We aren't talking about a vague piece of future coding, we are still dealing with a close variant of HR3200.

-=T=-

Public Option = Government managed health insurance plan offered as an alternative to private health insurance (intended to force insurance companies to be more competitive in pricing)

Though it was part of the same HR3200, the requirement for (near) universal coverage is NOT the same as Public Option. When the Public Option was removed, the requirement for (near) universal coverage was not. THAT part is linked to the removal of the pre-existing conditions clauses. As long as the removal of pre-existing conditions clauses is part of the bill, then so must be the requirement for (near) universal coverage. This requirement for universal coverage includes (as it should) penalties for those who don't comply.

You're welcome to take a position different than mine on this. I think that requiring everyone to have health insurance makes sense — you don't .. that's fine .. I can respect that, but this isn't what the Public Option is about. That's a DIFFERENT part of the package.