There's confusion over the terminology of health care as interest groups jockey for name turf. The term "public option" is being used by several camps to describe uh, what exactly. One plan, such as Senator Schumer's, is one in which you pay premiums and doctors in one don't belong in the other, and the plan has no public funding, as Medicare does. Yet Schumer calls his a public option. Senator Max Baucus, along with his corporate bedfellows, likes Schumer's plan.
We need to reframe the debate. What is needed is a name for a humane, affordable health care plan on the Medicare model that cannot be co-opted by the opposition.
Even better, what about the name used by the sponsors of HR676 in 2005? That plan is called Expanded Medicare. The original plan was single payer. This one isn't in the beginning but it could grow.
DKos contributors such as Slinkerwink and Dallasdoc have consistently forwarded the Medicare meme in DKos diaries. The 'public option on the Medicare model' or the 'Medicare-like public option' is what Slink wrote several times yesterday in an effort to distinguish her vision from the variety of sell-outs in Congress on behalf of the industry.
'Public Option' sounds like Public Restroom or Public Housing. Rush Limbaugh can rant over a socialist sounding government plan and get away with it, but you don't go dissing Grampaw's Medicare any more than a politician can attack Social Security.
Medicare has a brand that is seared in our minds as America's form of public health care.
A new poll shows a majority of Americans believe Medicare should be expanded to include everyone. More than half of respondents are even willing to pay more taxes for the coverage.
And name popularity cuts across political boundaries. Here's a recent editorial by the Tennesseean:
Medicare is one of the most popular health-care programs the nation has ever witnessed. While it is endangered by the looming entitlement crisis — where Medicare is believed to be in even greater trouble than Social Security — the fundamentals of Medicare stand up well. It's no surprise then that the idea of "Medicare for everybody" has gained traction in the health-care debate. So as key members of Congress look at ways to save and improve Medicare, it warrants the attention of anyone worried about the future of health care overall.
To conclude this short diary I want to help the term be framed with some action. As Robert Reich pointed out on his blog, the House is likely to come up with a more progressive plan than the Senate.
It's still possible that the House could come up with a real Medicare-like public option and that Senate Dems could pass it under a reconciliation bill needing just 51 votes. But it won't happen without a great deal of pressure from the White House and the public.
HR676 is a bold plan put forth by Rep. Conyers and Rep. Kucinich that creates comprehensive medical coverage for all Americans. But this plan has been shoved to the sidelines by the same corporate interests that are killing a true public option plan.
That is why we need to draw support from the authors of HR676 to craft an expanded Medicare plan that can pass. By framing the progressive plan Expanded Medicare, the goalposts are automatically moved toward a stronger public model.
78 House co-sponsors signed on to HR676, and they are the potential base for a modified expanded medicare plan in the House. We can push for that plan by calling our House members, and when we do, start framing. Just start calling the public option Expanded Medicare.
Remember,
Medicare is NOT socialized health care. All the facilities in the system are privately owned or owned by the local communities that they reside in and all of the doctors and nurses are either in private practice or otherwise privately employed. Medicare is simply a form of government managed health insurance, nothing more.
Let's frame the issue by pushing for an Expanded Medicare plan, one that uses the Medicare model to serve more populations.