Public health care option shot down... but can we expect different in the future?
3 comments
The Senate Finance Committee, in a 15-8 vote, has shot down an amendment calling for a public health care option. My boy Chuck Schumer introduced another amendment with a different version of a public health care plan, which was defeated by 13-10. He says the fight is not over.
I'm hugely disappointed by this news. But Senator Schumer's dedication made me feel slightly better; I know that there are politicians and citizens who support health care reform, and we can only hope that eventually, we can live in a country where we're not going broke to pay for health care or being rejected for coverage because of a "preexisting condition."
Also, in an opinion piece in Huffington Post by Robert Creamer, he argues that the mere fact that ten Democrats voted to support a public option shows growing support for health care reform. Read it if you want to feel a bit better about this whole thing. In a way, it is pretty amazing that the public option did receive a significant amount of votes - though we wouldn't completely switch to universal health care, mere "reform" makes Americans shake in their boots. Here's me hoping that in time, those so afraid of change will come to their senses.
Posts
September 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM
My concern with this health care reform, as an Independent, is that it’s all over the place, there are not enough specifics and it must be put into writing and as if “written in stone” so that not every illegal that comes to the US will get free healthcare and those that work hard all their citizen life in US pay for every “Tom, Dick and Harry”
September 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Right, I understand that, but we wouldn't be paying for "every Tom, Dick and Harry." This is just a public option... many people will stay on their private providers; it's not completely universal health care. Additionally, we can argue that it's worth it... because while we may, in a way, be paying for other people, they will be paying for us. Essentially, we're all taking care of each other. In England, every prescription costs six pounds, no matter what the medication is. I have health care and yet recently had to pay FIFTY dollars for my medication.
September 30, 2009 at 8:53 PM
John gordon, you asked for specifics and then complained about generalities which are specifically prohibited in every committee bill so far.
Perhaps it's a bit tough to realize there are at least four committees in each of our two houses of Congress, and that details are slightly different in each one.
And it might escape your desire to care to have healthcare for all to begin with. (Why even be in the debate if you don't care?) This 'Public Option' would be like Medicare (not Medicaid) in that the Feds would operate a non-profit insurer that people could buy insurance from, competing against private insurers. Just like the Post Office competes against UPS and FedEx. It's nothing new, the US has done this in many industries, and doesn't usually keep them (one of the largest private rail lines in the US, ConRail, was created out of many smaller rail lines bought out by the US government, then sold again when it was profitable.) This is just an option, an option people can pay for.
In no way are any of the bills talking about giving healthcare for free to tom dick or harry from out of the country. The Republican Senate offering even has budgeted an amount to refund people below a certain wage to buy health insurance.
---
I would complain at the title 'shot down' - this is one committee which we knew probably wouldn't pass it - as the other committees have already committed to a public option.
Currently it's 47 for 39 against the public option in the Senate, so when the bills are brought together from the committees, there's a good chance the final bill will have the Public Option. The majority leaders have stated there will be a public option in the final bill they vote on.