Democrats cave on public option

Since it appears that Senate Republicans are determined to scuttle any health care bill containing a public option, it seems prudent for Obama to shrug and say it's only a small part of the overall health reform package. He's agreed to consider instead, a Republican proposal for Health Insurance Cooperatives that would give individuals greater barginuing power and thereby potentially better rates. But that wouldn't represent a chalenge to existing insurance rates, it would only guarantee that the cooperatives would be able to offer the same inflated rates in existance today.
In a deficit neutral bill, the discount if any offered by cooperatives would have to come from savings in medicare and medicaid and or increased taxes on persons earning greater than $250,000 anually, or the limit on charatable deductions allowable persons in the highest income brackets.
But I don't see how this is going to work if there is no mandate for everyone to carry health insurance. Not when the Health Care Reform bill would guarantee coverage regardless of a preexisting condition or the onset of an illness. Good luck trying to get young healthy adults to buy health insurance when they can wait until they get sick and not worry about being rejected for their pre-existing condition.
Using the auto insurance model, what if it is mandated that every American must carry health insurance, and at a minimum must be protected from catastrophic expenses, over some predetermined amount. Such coverage could be offered by private insurers or some already existing government plan such as medicare in order to avoid creation of another layer of burochracy.

Friends, congressmen and senators, lend me thine ears...

August 3, 2009
During the congressional recess, let’s hope constructive and informative debate of health care reform legislation takes place.

Questions I would like to see debated:

Would a “public option” reimburse doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and other providers at rates comparable to current Medicare reimbursement or at rates comparable to private health insurance plans?

If the former is true, would providers be willing and able to be reimbursed at markedly reduced rates for folks enrolled in a public option? If not, will they have the option to refuse to care for persons insured under public option insurance?

Those pursuing proposing a public option should be prepared to come up with a ballpark estimate of what it would cost for, say a family of four earning up to $50,000 per year.

What will it cost the government to subsidize those at or below the poverty level
(Currently at $17,650 for a family of four)?

There are obviously many more questions our legislators must grapple with. But answering the above questions wouldn’t be a bad start.