Dean: Public Option Will Hurt Democrats in 2010 Elections

Reader Comments
Back to article

DEAN 2012!

Wowser of AZ 7:04PM October 12, 2009

Dean said the very opposite of your headline. He said that DELAYING the public option would hurt.
Just read your own article!
"Dean said Democrats need to do something that will have tangible results by next summer. His proposal: opening up Medicare to people over the age of 50 so that a "certain mass" of people will already have benefited from health reform by the elections. "You need to have people sign up for this program by July 2010," Dean said."
It would be fantastic if I could purchase Medicare for my family. I'm praying they come through for my family.

mike of OR 5:59PM October 09, 2009

Pretty deceiving headline, Mr. Garber.
Dean didn't say that passing a public option would hurt Democrats in 2010 -- he said that the fact that several of the provisions (including a public option) would not go into effect until 2013 would hurt Democrats. That's not anything like what you wrote in the headline and lede.

Vito of VA 4:24PM October 09, 2009

If you think the insurance companies are going to lower their cost while having a monopoly over the process – well I’ve got a bridge to sell you …and I think Wall Street should be completely unregulated – I trust strangers with my money…and pollution is good for us.
The fact remains that big insurance by refusing care to patients and reimbursement to doctors over typos has ticked everyone off - both patients and doctors. They have a virtual monopoly over the whole process a hugely well financed lobby team and representatives on both sides of the isle.
A friend of mine recently laid off without children is paying $2,500.00 dollars a month for his COBRA - that is outrageous. Health insurance costs more than his mortgage – unbelievable.
When Bush implored people to go out and spend - well that’s kind of hard to do when you are buried in health care bills, filling and refilling out forms and in foreclosure because you made a typo.
The insurance companies and their representatives in Congress would love to perpetuate a business model that is crippling our economy – a bunch of great Americans aren’t they?
Paul Burke
Author - Journey Home

Paul of VA 1:18PM October 09, 2009

I also have a Medicare Advantage plan, but I do not feel that it is right to give me an additional subsidy over those on straight Medicare and fee for service plans. So, I agree that the overpayments of $177 billion over 10 years should be recovered as part of the health care reform bill. The other billions that can be saved under Medicare involve the overbilling by doctors and the tests and treatments that do not need to be done. There is tremendous waste under Medicare right now that health care reform will provide an incentive to go after. Regional differences are absurb. For example, in Dade County, FL, I think it has been shown the seniors in their last two years of life have nearly a doctor's appointment every week, on average. That is excessive and costly. In other areas of the country, the cost in the last two years is far, far less. This is an example of how Medicare costs will be reduced over the next 10 years under health care reform. It will NOT be money that is simply taken away. That is a misconception.

George Fulmore of CA 11:31PM October 08, 2009

Huge, huge problem with this idea: There is no money funded to pay for it. I'm on Medicare at age 66. I know that the average subsidy for Medicare patients is about $1,000 per year at my age and much higher as people get older. Medicare is simply not funded to pay for younger ages at this time.
Under a Medicare Advantage policy, I pay $74 per month to my provider, plus $96 for Medicare Part B. What would someone age 50 be asked to pay for Medicare Part B? If it was $96/mo., then that person would expect Medicare to subsidize the rest?
I love single-payer stuff, but it is not going to happen this round, or is lowering the age of people eligible for Medicare. What WOULD make sense would be to lower the Medicare age to 62, which is, of course, the lowest age one can collect on Social Security. Then, those two could be in sync. But, again, there is no money right now to lower things to age 62, let alone age 50.

George Fulmore of CA 11:18PM October 08, 2009

As slow as the govt moves, if the Public Option is not up and running by 2010, it will hurt the Democrats, specifically from those who are still suffering and who have been ostracized from Health Care availability. This includes their families. More and more people have to help the older members of their families because people live a lot longer now. So the burden of health care gets spread around (for some). The other group who is going to be extremely angry are the ones paying for it. Watching your taxes go up and writing that check in April is going to radically change the political dynamic. All you're doing is paying the national debt. We have a very inexperienced, ambitious administration now. Brace yourselves.

Galasso of SC 6:23PM October 08, 2009

This is s great idea. Can you tell the President? Or Harry Reid? I am sure it would go over in the House. Dean should be part of this administration - or is he doing more good outside it?

jonnierae of MA 5:53PM October 08, 2009

this is an excellent idea which others had suggested some time ago. you can charge the 50+ a slightly higher premium than those over 65 (with appropriate subsidies for lower incomes). this would actually help medicare's solvency since it would bring in a relatively healthier population compared to 65+ people. you also have to combine this with allowing employers to put their 50+ employees on medicare and deduct the premium. the insurance companies would like this because it takes the least healthy people out of their employer groups. i cant believe the democrats have not thought of this before. it is also a political winner with the 50+ voters who will no longer have to be afraid of losing their employer provided insurance.

sr of CT 5:48PM October 08, 2009

Count me as a strong supporter of Medicare droppng the age threshold to 50. This is the cohort least able to qualify for insurance since so many have pre-existing conditions. Being alive for fifty years almost guarantees you will have had something go wrong. We've been paying in our whole working careers since Medicare started when most of us were entering the workforce. Bump up the medicare contribution rates, but let us into the program.

Dave of CA 2:30PM October 08, 2009