Weekly Address: Public Option Still There

Of note:

“Now, the source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what’s called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace. This alternative would have to operate as any other insurer, on the basis of the premiums it collects. And let me repeat – it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.”

“The insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea, or any that would promote greater competition. I get that. And I expect there will be a lot of discussion about it when Congress returns.”

“But this one aspect of the health care debate shouldn’t overshadow the other important steps we can and must take to reduce the increasing burdens families and businesses face.”

“So let me stress them again: If you don’t have insurance, you will finally have access to quality coverage you can afford. If you do have coverage, you will benefit from more security and more stability when it comes to your insurance. If you move, lose your job, or change jobs, you will not have to worry about losing health coverage. And we will set up tough consumer protections that will hold insurance companies accountable and stop them from exploiting you with unfair practices.”

Read the rest: by clicking here.

I love how he ends it. I agree that if real reform is passed, this can be something for our generation to be proud of. It’s time to grow up as a nation. Providing healthcare to everyone is a moral obligation. It’s shameful that it has taken this long.

It’s time for insurance reform to pass.

  • Lesley

    An Englishman encourages America to go for it. http://tinyurl.com/nnxgnu

    Lord Darzi, a former British health minister, and Tom Kibasi, an honorary lecturer at Imperial College London, attack the “bizarre allegations” in the United States about Britain’s national health service: “The myth-making ranges from the misleading to the mendacious to the downright ludicrous.”

  • http://queenofbirds.wordpress.com/ queenofbirds.wordpress.com/

    The UK Times also has a USA-v-UK healthcare comparison: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6797717.ece

    seems to conclude that actually France or the Netherlands do it better than either.

  • http://www.philosyphia.com Nathan Pralle

    In fact, the public option is, in my mind, the only way real reform will happen without causing a cascade of increased premiums for everyone else. If insurance companies are going to be made to take on all those cases they’ve previously been rejecting due to pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, outrageously high deductibles, and so forth, they’re going to pass that cost on to the consumer, because god forbid it eat into their profits.

    So, the public option is the ONLY way to ensure that they receive the proper competition to help keep prices competitive. I suspect that at first there will be a flood of people going to the public offering, but over time and adjustments, it will be fairly evenly spread between public and private, so the insurance companies need not worry too much — that is, as long as they don’t hold out for whatever reason. They should embrace this as a marketing challenge — what other help can they bring the consumer? Easier paperwork? A personal, phone-available liason? Some of those things people WILL pay for and will gladly take over a public option that will probably be smooth, efficient, and fairly basic.

    In the end, he’s exactly right — we SHOULD be providing for our people. We do it for roads, we do it for public education (and nobody calls it, “socialized education”, if you notice), and we do it for police/fire protection. Why not healthcare? Even if it costs me a bit more, but we’re covering everyone — that’s a win/win in my book.