
Richard Kirsch, leader of the reform campaign Health Care for America Now says there are some nice things about the emerging public option compromise in the Senate...but it's still not a public option.
"Our take is pretty simple," Kirsch told me in an interview. "We're glad to see there's a good public option for people 55 and over, and we're going to work hard to extend that."
Kirsch is refering to the Medicare buy-in, which would allow people 55-64 to pay for the same insurance seniors receive from the government. In essence, that amounts to a public option.
He went on, "We don't view non-profit insurers as a substitute for a public option. We're not going to compromise on our principles"
"Our position has always been that we want a national, robust public option," Kirsch said. "The closest thing we've seen to that is the House and that's our position today.
FreeRider
December 9, 2009 3:47 PM
Good for you! Now, how many Senate votes can you deliver for a "national, robust public option"? NONE? Well, STFU!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 9, 2009 3:48 PM
Good on them!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kali Star
December 9, 2009 3:51 PM
I'm interested now on the position of the AFL-CIO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 9, 2009 4:18 PM
I agree with HCAN. No individual mandates without a strong public option. If we deliver mandates and fines without a strong public option, it will be a public policy disaster. I believe the backlash to such a move would be so shrill, the entire bill may have to be backed out down the road.
I could stand to lose the public option, if we drop the mandates and the new taxes on "Cadillac" plans. That would be fine with me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?