Once again, the Democrats screw it up

[ellid]

The public option is out of the Senate version of health care reform, replaced by allowing people to be eligible for Medicare at age 55. How this helps anyone younger than 55 who doesn't have health insurance is beyond me.

I have no words to describe how angry this makes me. Harry Reid booted this one straight into the woods.

Comments

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

Did you hear the opinion piece on NPR a day or two ago saying (basically) "a crippled public option isn't worth fighting for"? In fact, the Left might be better off without it, since if it's defanged so it can't actually compete with private companies, the Right will use it as evidence that the government can't do anything right.

True, Medicare-at-55 doesn't really help anyone under 55... but it's a step toward single-payer, which is almost certainly a good thing. Maybe in a few years we can make it Medicare-at-45, then....

On the bright side, the Senate defeated Nelson-Hatch (aka Stupak).

[ellid.livejournal.com]

I hope you're right, but I have my doubts...:(

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

And for those under 55, there is "the same health insurance system Federal employees get," which is provided by several non-profit insurance companies but administered by the Federal government (in the same sense that your employer probably "administers" your access to one or more insurance companies with which they have deals).

The reason to push for a public option as opposed to just "non-profit" was always a matter of scale: is the insurer going to be large enough to negotiate good prices? The non-profits that currently insure most Federal employees are presumably reasonably large already, and giving them a bunch of additional customers will make them even larger.

The question is whether there's some law on the books forbidding those non-profit insurance companies to negotiate with providers and pharma companies to save taxpayer dollars. Or whether there's some law on the books forbidding them to cover abortion.

If the non-profits haven't been crippled in either of those ways, this compromise might provide all the substance of a public option without actually using the words "public option", which certain people have sworn to oppose with their last dying breath.

[prince-hring.livejournal.com]

Let's see if I get this straight:

1. Oppose a bill;
2. Say you'll support it if they change it thus and so;
3. Repeat #2 until the bill is twisted into useless knots; finally
4. Castigate your opposition for introducing such a twisted bill.

Did I miss anything?