There they go again, a big government take-over of medicare...
damn liberals want to run everything, right, Al?

More importantly -- Medicare is the airtight refutation of the idea that a public option would put private insurers out of business. Medicare is not a gold plated plan -- rather it provides a baseline of care.

Has it put private insurers out of the business of insuring people over 65? Not at all -- it has spawned an entire industry of insurers providing "medigap" insurance to cover what Medicare doesn't.

The same is true in countries with national health insurance. People who want more coverage purchase supplemental plans from private insurers.

Why this hasn't been hammered home ad nauseam by the Democrats on the Hill and in the White House is a mystery to me.

And the tv spots would practically write themselves! "There's a 'Part E' in America...and you're invited!" Or how about "You gotta fight! For your right! To Paaaaaaaart E!"

Jesus these people are dense- people have been trying to tell them this for years. But I guess better late than never.

It would help if the message was much simpler. The easiest way to do this might be to break this into several bills.

For example, one bill could be called "Medicare for Kids" and expand Medicare coverage to everyone under 18. That's easy to understand, appealing to most people, and hard to vote against.

Another bill could be called "Buy into Medicare" and allow anyone who wants to, regardless of age, to buy into Medicare coverage.

Another bill could be called "Consumer Protection for Health Insurance" and could prevent health insurance abuses like screening for pre-existing conditions and dropping people once they get sick.

Keep it simple, use things people already understand (like Medicare), and stick to things with wide public support (like helping children and protecting people from our deeply unpopular health insurance companies).

Of course, the success really depends on exactly who "everyone" is. Will the option be open to EVERYONE, or just "everyone" who cannot afford anything else, even with a government subsidy?

I believe the difference is important, because limiting the option to "everyone" fills a different, less healthy, more expensive to care for pool than an option that is truly open to EVERYONE would. The chances of success are quite different.

So, if we're having Medicare part "E", we need to be sure it's EVERYONE, not "everyone".

Come on Washington Monthly, I can't believe you haven't figured out that Boehner is using GOP-speak when he says that "Americans oppose government run health care." He doesn't mean all Americans -- like the 57% who answered "yes" when pollsters asked them if they supported a public option. He means "real" Americans -- the kind that watch FOX, the kind that Sarah Palin speaks about, you know, the kind that live in Red states.

Goddamn grandiose windbags and bloviaters! Medicare For Everyone has been discussed for months on this modest site. The Night Owl Cafe's geriatric coffee club members at Flint came up with the slogan last summer as a way of defining what "public option" implied and meant.

Excellent! and totally necessary, if only to remove a Republican talking point, AND smooth over the fears of seniors.

Also - if it were really Medicare for All, all the healthcare dollars currently flowing into the pockets of insurnance executives would start flowing into the Medicare fund. This would have the immediate effect of a raise for every person working a W-2 job in America who currently pays into the Medicare trust fund AND contributes to their employers healthcare plan.

American business would become more profitable which usually creates jobs. America becomes more competitive in the global arena. How is that bad?

A lot of essential services people REALLY LIKE are government run

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A

Simple concepts, easy to understand, fact-on-your-side. . . yep, exactly the situation where Democrats can't get a cohesive message going.

Sorry, shoulda done it all fancy and stuff:

A lot of essential services people REALLY LIKE are already government run.

The problem I see with this is that the "medicare is bankrupt" meme is alive and well on the email chain letter front and widely believed. So that leads to how do we afford medicare for "everyone" (thanks pirate, for the above) among the detractors. Though it could be countered if Dems would state clearly how these new people would infuse new money into the system. But would they, if they are only low income folks who need government assistance?

Argh. Why can't we just do it right and enact single payer and cover EVERYONE? It just makes too much sense.

Yes, link the public option to Medicare. GOP has always been opposed to Medicare and wants to destroy it while projecting that the Dems are the bad guys that want to destroy it. Making the link should put the GOP between a rock and hard place with respect to consistent and intelligent messaging on the subject.

And what pirate wench @ 10:40 said!

Meant to add: why is health care a marketable commodity at all?

@Chopin. One could say the republicans supported and passed part D, so why not continue on with the alphabet. When we hit Z for the zombie republicans, perhaps they'll get it.

Hey, all you twentysomethings with a job: Take a look at your pay stub. You are already paying for Medicare coverage; you just can't use it until you hit 65. . .

It is important to keep in mind what the "public option" being debated here is. It is an "option" that only about 10% of the public will be allowed to participate in, namely those individuals who don't receive coverage from their employer. It is unclear that this program will necessarily be able to compete with private insurance. It will depend on how many people choose it, and the health status of those people. If an insufficient number of people decide to enroll, or those people represent an relatively unhealthy risk pool, then the program will fail. That failure, in turn, will be used as evidence in future debates that government involvement in health care is not the answer. The louder we claim that this is a victory for progressivsm, the more those claims may come back to haunt us.

There is nothing going on here that is new. The parameters of the public debate have been defined by elites, both democrats and republicans, such that regardless of the outcome, their interests are protected. Within those parameters, of course, intense debate and conflict is actively encouraged, thus distracting people from the real issues at hand while proclaiming the virtues of "democracy" and "freedom." And so we argue vigorously with each other, and demonstrate for or against "reform" and the "role of government." In the end, however, the hierarchy of power and wealth remains intact, and the democratic nature of our nation is diminished, and most of us are a little less free.

" Medicare is a public option." ?!?!

What's optional about Medicare ?

There is nothing optional about paying the Medicare part A payroll tax or about paying the income tax used to finance most of the rest of it. Medicare is a public program with mandatory participation (in effect). For all I know it is legal to renounce medicare (and not pay the tiny premia) but I doubt anyone has ever actually done so.

If people dislike the public option, they should detest medicare.

In briefer What publius said.

Dave @ 11:19 - Yes, and they did it without respect to the subsequent expense involved. But then, the whole point was to enrich big pharma, not protect the $enior$, kid$ or their puppie$.

Memo to John Boehner: 5,600 of us have joined Facebook group "Hey John Boehner, I'm an American and I support a public option!"
I am a retired PA. I spent 4 years as a corpsman in a "government- run system"-- the US Navy. I worked 30 years in another "Marxist" organization-- VA Healthcare. Now my wife is enrolled in another "socialized medicine" conspiracy-- Medicare. I have a hard time seeing these programs as being all that subversive.

When we hit Z for the zombie republicans, perhaps they'll get it. - Dave @ 11:19

Can't we just make it so we default to single payer after all these endruns? Sign me up for Part E anyday...and I'm healthy (now). Unless Al can use his cogent persuasion skills to convince me otherwise. Al? What say U Al?

The trouble is that Medicare for Everyone, if it worked like Medicare, would be compulsory, not optional -- it would, in fact, be a single payer plan, not a public option as that's currently understood.

By passing Medicare part E, available to EVERYBODY, and then removing antitrust exemptions from insurers, congress will be saying to America that they can stand for something called honesty. We can once again be proud to be an American, and live in a country worth fighting for. And they would be addressing the cynics who say this is all just a semblance of democracy, a kind of argumentative show to lend creedence to the idea of democracy while the elites have already predetermined the outcome of this debate. That's what the cynics will say. And the cynics will be proven right.

awesome. so the fate of health care reform comes down to semantics?

good lord, we are screwed.