I completely respect the opinion, that I hold, that single payer is the way to go for HCR.
I also respect the opinion, that I hold, that a "strong" public option (such as Jacob Hacker proposed) is a nice way to help control costs and keep insurance companies honest.
I also respect the opinion, that I hold, that a "weak" public option (such as the one in the house bill) is some kind of start that could be improved.
I do not respect the opinion that we should "kill the bill" just because the "weak" public option is not in there.
You know who else doesn't respect that opinion? Jacob Hacker, the guy who basically put the public option in our consciousness. You know who else doesn't respect that opinion? My uninsured patients.
Look, the vote is this week, I take Pelosi at her word. If you think "killing the bill" now is a good idea, just because the "weak" public option is not in there, I'd like to hear about when you think the next chance for HCR to have a vote will be.
More below the fold.
I've got patients who die, or who are crippled physically and financially for lack of insurance. And people here want to "kill the bill"? When this bill will make denial based on preexisting conditions, rescission, and f'd up medical loss ratios a thing of the past? When it will insure 2/3 of the uninsured?
I guess once the bill is killed I'll just patiently wait for single payer. After, all, our efforts could only get more progressive with time right? Oh, that's right, I forgot that there won't be another attempt until the next democratic president, when's that? 7 years? Probably not given the fact that dems will have just demonstrated they can't govern. So at least one term for a repug? I guess that's 11 years, oh but it will be so worth it when finally single payer is instituted. What's that you say? The insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital lobby's will only be stronger by then? Well, maybe we'll at least get a public option then, or at least a "weak" public option...
This bill will be a huge step forward, it will establish the precedent that the US government is in charge of regulating insurance companies, and keeping premiums down and medical loss ratios up. If it's such a great subsidy for insurance companies, as some are claiming, why are they funding attack ads against HCR?
For that matter, who cares if it is a subsidy to for profit companies? A recent rec'd diary stated:
The mandate. You cannot mandate people to, by law, purchase healthcare insurance if they don't have a public option to choose from. The alternative is simply too ghastly;
Hell, I'd subsidize Halliburton if I knew it would cover 2/3 of my uninsured patients. What's more "ghastly", a private mandate in exchange for much better regulations, or leaving those 30 million people uninsured?
Like I said, if you think the private mandate is more ghastly, I'd love to hear your plan for when we'll get back to those 30 million after this week's vote is lost. If you think it's sooner than a decade, then I've got some nice ocean-view property to sell you (in Switzerland, where I'll be going if HCR fails, and where at least my private insurance will be appropriately regulated).
UPDATE: Just to be clear based on comments below, this is NOT an anti-public option diary. I think it's great to fight for reforms we believe in, I would prefer medicare buy-in, to strong PO, strong PO to weak PO. But none of those are in this bill, and I doubt they will be inserted before the weekend no matter how many calls we make.
What I am objecting to is people saying "kill the bill" because no PO is in the bill, when the bill will do a lot of good even without it. After this week, I will be hammering people for the PO, supporting Grayson's efforts etc...,but none of that can happen, and 30 million remain uninsured probably for more than a decade, if the bill fails this week.
So if you're for the PO or better, I'm right there with you, but if you're for killing the bill that will be voted on within a few days, then I've got a big beef with you. Thanks, and go whip!