Public Option Vs. Single Payer

Here is a Long In-Depth Essay on Why the ACA (ObamaCare) Didn’t Include a Public Option

The ACA (ObamaCare) didn’t include a Public Option because Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a former Nebraska insurance commissioner, refused to vote for any bill with a public option.

According to John McDonough, a key Senate staffer in Sen. Ted Kennedy’s office during the health care debate in 2009 and 2010, Nelson was vote number 60 for the ACA, and the ACA needed 60 votes to pass.

So a bill with a public option could not get through the Senate despite intense lobbying by progressive groups.

Politicians like Sanders and Obama helped to “save” a backdoor for the public option by including provision 1332 which allows for state-based solutions.

Progressives knew their Single Payer proposal was going to get cut, and they accepted the compromise to get expanded coverage like Medicaid expansion. I don’t believe that there was any reason for cutting the public option other than to get the ACA passed.

Ex-Sen. Nelson is not “a good reason.” That isn’t a policy; that is politics. We had values masquerading as debates about facts, numbers, and data; one can’t cure polio with “small government” and “liberty,” those are concepts, not cures.

Putting ideology before healthcare isn’t the same as working for the American people. Politicians Cornhusk-ing each other in the backroom isn’t the same as ensuring that a hardworking family has access to affordable care. Debating single payer vs. anarchy and a flat-tax isn’t the same as working together to solve a problem.

There isn’t anything complex about denying our citizens a public option for the past decade while Republicans try to Break RomneyCare 2.0 without a public option.

Ben Nelson is a Conservative Democrat, not a Solid South Republican or Tea Party Republican, but the results are the same. We get less healthcare because ideology interferes. I wonder if a Romney Republican would have been more helpful?

I support what ObamaCare got right, but the theater and the specifics are much more debatable.

Republicans didn’t vote for the ACA and have obstructed it, but they might consider including a public option in their upcoming repair plan.

Many people are working toward a public option at a state level, showing that not only does a public-buy-in option plus HSA work, but it is a positive the next step for healthcare and state and federal budgets.

So is the lesson “don’t write a bill to placate one Republican from Nebraska?” Or is the lesson, “don’t use our citizens’ healthcare as collateral in political games?”

Let’s work to ensure a healthcare system that works for all Americans. If that is the goal, why not include a public option which could be run by private non-profits and generate profits that might begin to pay back our crushing Treasury debt.

I’m fiscally conservative, and no party or faction is fiscally conservative these days. It is awkward to be a party of one, but I do think one of these days at least one member of Congress might decide to redefine conservative as the fiscal kind instead of the social kind and embrace this idea. I believe in social States’ Rights conservatism, and I know the abolish the IRS argument always wins the day, but maybe we should try something life a public option in the next cycle and see if it makes financial sense.

What do you think?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *