The public option sounds like a step toward universal health care, but it’s really a delay tactic. The latest versions would force public plans to mimic private insurers, while the fight over the arcane details buys the industry another decade or two.

...

The difference between a vampire and a bad health care policy idea is that vampires jump out of their coffins and drink blood at sunset. Undead health care proposals emerge from think tank closets and suck the life out of useful ideas when the sun rises on a national health care debate. As public fury at exploding costs and deadly corporate claims denials boils over into historic Democratic election gains, can someone please find a wooden stake for the public option?

Improved and expanded Medicare for All would give everyone full coverage at much lower cost than the combined private premiums, taxes, and out-of-pocket payments that are eating up family income today. But it violates a cardinal rule of federal politics: never do anything that causes corporations or the ultrawealthy any pain.

Instead, corporate Democrats wanting to be seen “doing something” about the imploding US health care system have long peddled a vague public option notion because it sounds like the marriage of a big noncorporate vision (it’s public!) with competition and freedom of choice (it’s an option!). Liberal nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and pundits revived its rotting corpse in response to pro–Medicare for All candidates’ primary victories and Tuesday night’s stunning results.

It’s a perfect nonsolution to our three-headed crisis of health care cost, access, and quality. Nobody knows what a “public option” is because there’s no common definition and nothing like it has ever been seen in the wild, so it can be anything weaselly politicians want it to be. It needs to be put out of our misery.

...

The worst thing about public optionism is enduring smug lectures that Medicare for All is a political fantasy that could never happen from people promoting a vague, unworkable idea now enjoying its twenty-third year of politically viable nonexistence. Yet The American Prospect casually assumes that a series of essential Medicare for All elements against which the industry will fight like rabid dogs can easily be grafted onto a public option.

Health care is a public good. Pretending that having government act like a health insurance corporation will do anything useful is absurd. Let’s kill this putrefying political monster right now.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

I was navigating public plans and Medicaid in my state. 75% of the fuckery, is that every practice is going to only take a select set of plans. Whether by choice or by complexity, you choose the wrong management plan for your Medicaid and your established practice may or may not take it. And it changes too. It ALL needs to get burned to the ground. ALL of it. Medicare for all. Fuck everything short of that.

  • End predatory plans.
  • End corporate handcuffs for medical care.
  • End the gambling every year on what your coverage need to be.
  • End predatory ambulance services.

The list keeps going. It's so fucked right now.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    One more bullet to add

    • Include dental and vision in Medicare for All
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 21 hours ago

    Don't allow providers to cherry-pick their customers by refusing to accept some plans.

    End the distinction between "in-network" and "out of network" which exists solely to cheat the consumer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago*

    I'm not qualified to make arcane decisions about my health coverage, any more than I am to determine which food preservatives are safe and which should be kept far away from human consumption. There are some people qualified to make such distinctions, but we generally want them employed at a level where they determine what works, and then ban the preservatives that cause flipper babies, and the coverage plans that will leave you dead or bankrupt or both at once.

    Everyone should have the healthcare they need, and nobody outside of a very few particular cases should ever have to think about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago

    Medicare for all Americans now!

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    It’s strategically smarter to push for single payer all you can eat health care because there will always be negotiations. And if you push for the best thing first, you can get talked down to “acceptable.”

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Agreed . I suggest we open with Single Payer healthcare, with dental, vision, hearing and veterinary included.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Hell, at that point why compromise.

    Semi related, some states have started mandating hearing be covered by health insurance and it's something the feds really should have done years ago. It really sucks being a 20 something who needs to scrape together a couple thousand dollars to be able to hear (and thus be more employable)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    I used to know a librarian in her 20s who was legally deaf without her hearing aids, but her work insurance wouldn't cover them so she'd have to go on Medicaid to have them covered and then she could work again. The whole situation is absolutely stupid and needs to be fixed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 day ago

    End the moderation fetish. No more half measures in public policy. Neoliberalism must die.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 day ago

    The difference between a vampire and a bad health care policy idea is that vampires jump out of their coffins and drink blood at sunset. Undead health care proposals emerge from think tank closets and suck the life out of useful ideas when the sun rises on a national health care debate. As public fury at exploding costs and deadly corporate claims denials boils over into historic Democratic election gains, can someone please find a wooden stake for the public option?

    Brilliant analogy.

    And I can't help but think of Jeffries' nothingburger response to Medicare-for-all questions: "We're going to expand ACA tax credits."

    So in other words, you're going to make UHC and similar corporate middleman vampires richer? Instead of taxing them properly in order to fund actual universal healthcare? Noted.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago
    [–] 6 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    I think they could and should come up with something better than "Medicare for All", which is still pretty expensive so it's not like we would have what all the countries everyone envies have, where you pay almost nothing.

    Medicare is very convoluted, there are parts A, B, and D. You need to have a supplemental plan because Medicare on its own only pays 80% after a deductible. You also have to pay for a separate prescription drug plan, and there's no dental or vision coverage at all. So the Part B for this coming year is $209/mo. for a single person if you make less than $109K/year, and there are no discounts/subsidies if you're poor. Then the supplemental plans are variable, around $150-$300/mo. or more.

    Then the Part D (prescription drug plan) premiums could be from $0- a couple hundred more/mo. and they are all different and cover different sets of drugs (and which drugs can change each year), plus you also have to pay for each prescription--the amount varies wildly and also depends on which pharmacy you go to! It's insane. It's so complicated that you need to go to one of those Medicare advisors each year to figure out which Part D plan to switch to, since the older you get the less able you are to deal with the complexity.

    So I'm just saying, I hope they can do a hell of a lot better than just switching everyone onto the existing Medicare system.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Yeah what we want is nationalized healthcare. I'd say medicaid for all, but medicaid still goes through private insurers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child)

    Yeah I don't know as much about how Medicaid works, but from my limited knowledge the Medicaid model probably gets us closer to what we need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 16 hours ago

    On the user side: it just works as far as any in America can. It's free and you don't have co-pays or any of that shit. You do have pretty restricted choices in who you see though because of the other sides to it

    On the provider side: it's more complicated and has restrictions on how much you can charge, but it's been thoroughly gamed where possible. Many offices don't take it

    On the internal side: it's a cluster fuck. It's a highly regulated service that the government pays for, but is provided by private insurers. Some states have public options, but most states are just giving you the medicaid plan of your choice of health insurance company. This is the ultimate reason why medicaid for all is a bad idea, it lets the source of the problem fester

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 hours ago

    It's called Medicare for All for branding and because it would be implemented by the Medicare bureaucracy, but all the M4A bills proposed eliminate all the parts and supplements and deductibles and premiums. If they don't compromise it to death it would be better national healthcare than most of Europe, patients pay literally nothing, taxes are the only source of healthcare funding, private insurance is banned, Medicare covers vision and dental and drugs and ambulances. Depending on the version of the bill for-profit hospitals are illegal because it gets rid of billing codes and Medicare just pays the hospital's operating budget.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Nobody knows what a “public option” is because there’s no common definition and nothing like it has ever been seen in the wild [...]

    Americans considering anything outside of the USA challenge any% IMPOSSIBLE

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 21 hours ago

    Outside the US, there are a number of existing universal-coverage healthcare approaches. But there's nothing like the "public option" being proposed in the US, where a state-provided system is meant to compete with private-sector insurers.

    There are many countries where state-provided (or state-mandated) systems can be optionally augmented by private services, but in those countries, the state system is a foundation that's built on, not one option in a marketplace.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    The public option sounds like a step toward universal health care, but it’s really a delay tactic.

    Before going further, I'll note that these two things aren't mutually-exclusive though. I think Public Option is a stepping-stone to Single-payer, and just like the benefits ACA brought with it over the former failed system, it's a small step of progress which almost inevitably leads to everyone jumping ship to national insurance anyway in the long-run. Whether we can sell to the electorate going straight to the end-goal of Single-payer is the real question.

    Last year, PEW did a survey on where people stand on this and if you assume Mix government / private programs suggests public option then Single-payer is overtaking it by 4 percentage points. Keep pushing until we're forced to settle.

    Forget the meta-talk about, "Should we go for it or not" and do the groundwork of pitching it to people across all states as to why it must be the goal from the outset. Convince the people, and then the representatives will follow.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Convince the people, and then the representatives will follow.

    Congress doesn't give a shit what constituents think. Multiple studies show popular opinion has almost zero impact on legislative action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Those may be dated studies?

    “Public opinion can behave like ocean tides,” Kuriwaki said. “When support grows large enough, it can be a very powerful pressure on the institution. Though maybe not as fast as a lot of voters might want.”

    While imperfect, especially when sentiment grows so strong that impacts their own electability (e.g., AI data-centers, Iran War, Epstein Files), they can shift. It does have some impact.

    No matter how you slice it, either way if public sentiment isn't there, then it's definitely not happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    MFA should be opt-out by default.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 2 comments in c/fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    I was expecting a new boring status quo quote from Slotkin because of the image.

  • source