I'de be interested to know the CBO's assumption regarding what percentage of consumers will be electing the public option. Increase that number, and the savings will increase as well.

And if the CBO would score HR676, we'd see that Single Payer saves even more $ than Public Option.

[...] preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that a strong public option -- the kind that the House of Representatives is putting in its reform bill -- should net somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion in savings over ten years. -- TNR

Yes, but thinks of the billions the private insurance scammers would lose!

based on the letter from the house blue dogs it seems to me that they are going after the subsidies for 400% of the fpl and not the public option. considering that nobody on the hill actually thinks 400% will actually be the final number (remember baucus had that also until he lowered it and magically found billions in savings) it shouldnt be hard to meet their demands. im kinda thinking it's just a bit of theater to appear fiscally responsible.

Indeed, word of this comes just as Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), a member of the Blue Dog Caucus, announced that she'll support a public option as part of reform.

From a June 24 email to me from Jim Cooper, one of the Blue Dogs throwing the hissy fit over cost:

"One of the hottest debates in Washington is over the public option, a government-backed health insurance policy competing alongside private health insurance plans. Proponents argue that a public option serves as a check on private insurers and a way to lower costs. I agree, and support a public option that works on a level playing field with other insurers."

whatever the blue dogs need to hide behind to do the right thing... whatever...
wev.

PUBLIC OPTION SAVES A LOT OF MONEY

Then this must be taken off the table immediately.

Rep Sanchez, had you not decided to switch, I would asked for you to explain the difference between yourself and B-1 Bomber Dornan. Oh, I see, you don't stay after hours making lonely speeches for the record.

Beauregard Janglez,

Is a public option affordable for people at 400% of poverty without a subsidy?

I thought cost estimates were in the $7,000/year range (but I don't know if that's per person or family)

If it's per person, that's WAY more than most families at 400% of poverty could afford.

And it makes the doughnut hole of the uncovered pretty big.

katiebird,

If it's robust it can be (somewhat). the big problem regarding the subsidy is that without a public option there is no chance it will be affordable and the mandates (which for some reason get no debate) will be crushing for individuals and small businesses.

personally i think legislation needs to focus on costs with the assumption that there will be no subsidies and then figure out how much subsidy we can afford. the greater the subsidy amount the greater the economic distortion (lessens the price pressure from consumers) and the smaller the niche opposition (which will basically be limited to the self employed and small business employees making $40-75k).

mandates, medicaid and large subsidies (the baucus plan) dont fix the system they merely minimize the amount of people getting screwed over.

from what i can tell most of our elected officials are not treating the health care debate as a policy debate but rather a political debate. the goal isnt to fix the system it's to minimize the amount of people complaining about the system. realistically, 400% of fpl ($40k) was never going to make it all the way through. the number is that high now in order to make mandates more palatable and to then be able to claim a grand compromise on costs by cutting them.

from what i remember the number for mass. is $10k per person so $7k at least represents a savings. that's actually why it is so important that a robust public option gets in the bills, because though it's an imperfect solution it's the only one on the table that has the potential to reduce costs long term.

subsidies merely mask the systemic problem in the short term since they are invariably the first thing cut when cost savings are needed. we cannot rely on subsidies, which in this case are merely short term bribes to liberals to placate them in exchange for mandates. that's why we the people need to express our demand that unless there's a strong public option then no deal. we can't rely on subsidies to make a bill affordable.

if we bring down costs we can get everybody covered. but if we focus first on getting everybody covered without really dealing with the systemic cost problem we're gonna increase costs in the long term and find ourselves with an unsustainable subsidy bill down the line.

(sorry for the rant)

AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!

It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.

STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.

And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.

Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).

Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.

In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!

If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.

THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!

Join the fight.

Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!

God Bless You

Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS

It is the coolest site, keep so!