4 Responses

  1. I believe they should re-design Medicaid to include more income levels, more adults and it should work like the Medicaid CHIP program. That program has a no cost option and a low-cost option. It also is big on preventive care. Then maybe include a supplemental option to help low paid individuals cover their high deductibles and out of pocket expenses. When people are out of work, they could go on this new Medicaid temporarly until they get a new job.

    • I agree! Why are they not pitching this as an extension of Medicaid/Medicare? Both are popular and successful programs. The public option could simply be a fee that adults between the ages of 18 and 65 who wouldn’t normally be covered by one or the other would have to pay to “join”.

  2. Let our Congress not kid us, Americans. Without Single Payer Option, or without the Public Option, there would be no health care reform, no matter how much frills and fantasies our Congress might use to deceive the American Public. Any Congress person who tries to hoodwink the public into believing that Americans don’t want the Public Option is dead wrong. He/she ought to be asked: What percentage of the dishonest profits of the insurance corporations is being used to corrupt him/her.

    The Co-op Option would pose problems for the sick, especially during emergency. It’s delusional to expect Co-op Medical Centers to be conveniently located and easily accessible for all their patients. Would they be willing to reimburse their patients for emergency treatments in facilities not within the Co-op group?

  3. In a recent article, the author of the publlc option, Jacob Hacker, discusses a couple of ideas, including a program called “Medicare Plus” proposed in 2001. I’m sure you are aware of it. You can refer to the proposal here – http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jhacker/Medicare%20Plus.pdf

    The public option has become such that one side of the political spectrum will feel as if it has lost something great, and quite frankly, something that many people felt was promised (though not in those words). Once an issue has become so divisive, it is typically doomed to failure. At this point, perhaps it is possibly to accomplish the same thing that the public option would have (or close to it) without using words that have become divisive. Republicans have made the term ‘public option’ radioactive and as one pollster said, it has been ‘swift-boated’.

    I like the following proposal of ‘Medicare Plus’: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/Jacob_Hacker_Presentation.pdf. What about the idea of pushing this in place of the public option? It has the name ‘Medicare’ in it, which is established and vital to many Americans. It may create terminology that both parties can agree to. Everyone could save face and say “we have something that may work”. Is this overly optimistic?

    Though I am well aware that there is much more involved than a ‘term’ in some of appalling opposition to health care reform, many Americans are currently living out an idiom regarding health care that may be unnecessary for our objectives to be accomplished. Is it too late to change the terminology and re-package our ideas? I hope not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: