Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Problem Solved!

Valhalla's picture

The Hill is reporting that Democrats are 'rebranding' the public option as 'Medicare for All.':

Say hello to “Medicare Part E” — as in, “Medicare for Everyone.”

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

Seems Congress has finally locked on to the fact that Medicare's pretty popular:

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.

Mirroring the efficiency that advocates claim will result from a public option, Democrats have also managed to tie up all the misleading and meaningless jargon into one neat package:

The plan, called the “robust” option or “Medicare Plus 5” in the jargon that has emerged on Capitol Hill, ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent. Leaders are planning to roll the bill out next week, and are hoping to vote the first week in November

0
No votes yet

Comments

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

And thanks progressives and Democrats for pissing all over Medicare for All with this shitty rebranding of the shitty public option.

The only potential good in all of this is that Americans will be so pissed when they don't get what they're told - Medicare for Everyone - that they will actually demand it. Now, whether anyone will listen to them is doubtful, these are the same people who have been telling us for months now that Medicare for All was politically impossible, but who now rely on the same branding to sell their shitty plan.

Submitted by lambert on

... I'd rather be fighting to make Medicare what it ought to be, rather than trying to figure out the "public option" du jour.

Plus, this opens the way for Teddy's original idea, which was progressilely lowering the eligibility age.

Have the fauxgressives claimed credit for this yet?

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

This has co-optation (is that a word?) written all over it. It's quite a coincidence that just as we're seeing (true) Medicare for All demonstrations pick up speed and numbers, the same words are now coming out of Democrats mouths. I think this will neutralize single payer advocates even more effectively than just taking it off the table. Because now there will be no difference in even the terms people are shouting, just the meaning underneath. Once faux 'Medicare for All' is installed and victory proclaimed, it will be difficult to push real Medicare for All, and very difficult to pushback against the brand damage that will occur when something called 'Medicare for All' turns out to be 'the same crappy mandate that will increase premiums but decrease coverage'.

Looking forward, we need a snappy label for the proposal to achieve Medicare for All by gradually lowering the entry age, in order to distinguish it from the formless public option with Medicare window dressing version.

Submitted by lambert on

... there was always going to be "some bill, any bill." I'd prefer a Dem legislative FAIL, followed by punishment at the polls with a few Blue Dogs heaved over the side, but that's not likely. A public option policy FAIL is the least good option, since it could discredit government intervention permanently. Our strength in Medicare is that people have a working program to look at. Now the question will be, how are the Dems going to fuck it up worse than Bush? No doubt this is possible, even likely ("entitlement reform"), but it's easier to hold them accountable for it.