Why wait till 2013 to enact public-option?

[politicaladdict]

Why if democrats pass the health bill,  are they gonna wait till 2013 to enact it?

Is it because that's when right after Obama might get re-elected before disaster hits in?

I'm curious!

Why don't they just reform the useless medicaid instead taking more control of the economy?

[President Marokai]

Yes, we secretly know it's going to fail, that's why we're waiting.

Besides, if the Democrats were smart, they'd get benefits rolling before the 2010 elections. Unfortunately, they A) Don't have the courage to look like they're trying to do it for political benefit, and B) Are being blocked by entrenched interests that are banking on Republicans stiffening their opposition and watering down and/or eliminating the program entirely before it gets off the ground.

[Swing Voter]

Because if the public option miserably fails, they don't want it to impact 2012.

[Edu]

Welcome back politicaladdict, you were sorely missed.

[politicaladdict]

Yes, we secretly know it's going to fail, that's why we're waiting.

Besides, if the Democrats were smart, they'd get benefits rolling before the 2010 elections. Unfortunately, they A) Don't have the courage to look like they're trying to do it for political benefit, and B) Are being blocked by entrenched interests that are banking on Republicans stiffening their opposition and watering down and/or eliminating the program entirely before it gets off the ground.

That's the problem. Democrats are actually clever and know what this crap would do and know it would probably somehow effect Obama's possible re-election.

[politicaladdict]

Welcome back politicaladdict, you were sorely missed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah!

Let's just stick to asking questions about this issue!

[Edu]

Welcome back politicaladdict, you were sorely missed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah!

Let's just stick to asking questions about this issue!

[Χahar]

Yes, we secretly know it's going to fail, that's why we're waiting.

Besides, if the Democrats were smart, they'd get benefits rolling before the 2010 elections. Unfortunately, they A) Don't have the courage to look like they're trying to do it for political benefit, and B) Are being blocked by entrenched interests that are banking on Republicans stiffening their opposition and watering down and/or eliminating the program entirely before it gets off the ground.

That's the problem. Democrats are actually clever and know what this crap would do and know it would probably somehow effect Obama's possible re-election.

Then why would they want to do it?

[politicaladdict]

Yes, we secretly know it's going to fail, that's why we're waiting.

Besides, if the Democrats were smart, they'd get benefits rolling before the 2010 elections. Unfortunately, they A) Don't have the courage to look like they're trying to do it for political benefit, and B) Are being blocked by entrenched interests that are banking on Republicans stiffening their opposition and watering down and/or eliminating the program entirely before it gets off the ground.

That's the problem. Democrats are actually clever and know what this crap would do and know it would probably somehow effect Obama's possible re-election.

Then why would they want to do it?

More gov control and they think they can get by with it, and probably will.

Look what happen when medicaid passed, and now it's going bankrupt. Some people are still stupid and don't pay attention to it. Idiots want to just listen to what liberals say when they hear public-option and totally forget about reforming mediciad.

[anvi]

Mostly because a public option needs a beaurocratic infrastructure that doesn't exist yet.  The public option is not just an add-on to an already existing program like Medicare.  The thing has to get startup funds from making cuts to Medicare Advantage plans and levying taxes on Cadilac plans.  Beurocrats need to set up the insurance exchanges, create and administer the program, make initial bargaining deals with providers and then market the plan and begin to collect premiums and create databses for patient records, ect. ect. ect. 

A program this large, with this many moving parts that have to be developed in sequence, doesn't just appear out of thin air.

[JSojourner]

Mostly because a public option needs a beaurocratic infrastructure that doesn't exist yet.  The public option is not just an add-on to an already existing program like Medicare.  The thing has to get startup funds from making cuts to Medicare Advantage plans and levying taxes on Cadilac plans.  Beurocrats need to set up the insurance exchanges, create and administer the program, make initial bargaining deals with providers and then market the plan and begin to collect premiums and create databses for patient records, ect. ect. ect. 

A program this large, with this many moving parts that have to be developed in sequence, doesn't just appear out of thin air.

Anvik, sorry -- no.  That whole "it's too complex and large" is not nearly as compelling an argument as the "them liberals wanna destroy Amurrica".