anotherlook

With all the debate swirling around the “public option” in the health care reform sometimes I wonder if this is being used to cover up something more sinister than giving the public an option.

Yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a public option, which would allow states to “opt out” if this option was not something their state would need. My first thoughts on this “opt out” feature, was that states with a large population of minorities, lead by Republicans, could suffer the consequences of no public option.

Yet, on another level, this could bring into play accountability and influence political votes by the people. According to the “polls” there is a high percentage of the American public that is for the public option. If Governor’s refuse/opt out of the public option and the overwhelming percent of the public, in that state, prefers the public option this could affect re-election of the Governor making those who lead the state more accountable.

This is a tricky trigger because obviously the insurance industry has money which has fueled the opposition to the public option in the first place. Money wins elections especially when it is “freely” given and it is obvious, as well, that politicians will accept money when offered with no moral compass involved.

Secondly, I wondered if the public option, opt out, was final, that is, if a state chose to opt out, could they, at a later date choose to engage the public option under different leadership? Still another question is if a state preferred to choose a plan of co-ops would the same rules of “pre-existing” medical conditions hinder people from joining these co-ops.

The public option, with the “opt out” clause is shaky at best, however the important question is will it prove to be a legitimate way to include the controversial public option into the health care/insurance reform on the table? Already, the lone Republican who was on board, Senator Olympia Snowe, sates her disappointment in the inclusion of the public option.

As far as my limited knowledge but common sense tells me, the public option is the only option, I have seen on the table that has the potential to reduce insurance costs and add competition to the insurance industry, something most will agree is a necessary component of any health care/insurance reform legislation.

Some are suggesting calling the “public option” by another name and both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz have indeed come up with different names for the policy as a means to alleviate opposition. Pelosi suggested “the consumer option” where Representative Schultz has suggested “competitive option” as the name for the legislation.

Called by whatever name, the intent and the function would still be the same so what’s the point? I say it is time for Americans to stop allowing politicians and big business to tell us what is right for us, in a manner that hides the fact that it is more right as well as profitable for them, something that has been proven time and time again.

I say it is time to stop debating the public option and begin debating the means to make this option workable since one basis for rejection seems to be the poorly run government system of Medicaid/Medicare that is now used by millions today.

The debate, regarding the public option, as well as a number of other provisions, are expected to be under way for weeks to come even after the debates that have been going on for years regarding health care/insurance reform.

What the outcome of these pretentious debates will be is anyone’s guess. Though we are closer than we have ever been in making a decision on this important issue, the saying “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades” seems to be relevant here.

And that’s the way I see it!!!!!

Spyware Doctor con AntiVirus

Trackback URI | Comments RSS