>
>ive been lucky to not REALLY need to see a doctor this year.
>my calculation was that i would spend less paying out of my
>own pocked without insurance than if i got insurance and had
>to actually use it. it worked out this year but i know its a
>stupid gamble.

lol

>
>i think (would love some more details) petes plan would help
>50% of the uninsured. the ones over 200% the poverty line i
>dont really see how it would help them. if i can see what
>benefits these people would get, how much they would pay then
>i could be sure one way or the other.

Well, it's all out there. And no to my knowledge it doesn't only cover 50% of the uninsured, all uninsured (and currently insured) would be eligible. What differs, among other things, is whether folks are auto-enrolled and whether they qualify for no premium. For people above the Medicaid FPL threshold, they would go from being uninsured to having gold-level coverage for no more than 8.5% of their annual income and free generic drugs. That's not nothing. And the most vulnerable, indigent, people... like I said, homeless etc.. they are probably impoverished enough to be eligible for Medicaid so they would qualify for premium-free gold-level coverage and free generic prescription drugs. Again, not nothing.

>
>my fear with his public option is that people would be covered
>only by name. they wouldnt be able to afford to actually use
>their coverage. nothing i have read about the plan has taken
>that fear away. insurance and health care would still be too
>expensive for most people.

I hear ya. It's a tough problem for sure. Thankfully, the public and politicians share the same sense of urgency. That's helpful even if folks are still deciding what path they want to try.

>
>im trying to step back and think of what needs to change the
>most instead of going full single payer. or full single payer
>where everyone except the wealthy gets "free" health care.
>
>i would say people below 200% percent of the poverty line
>should have free coverge, no premium, no deductible, no
>co-pays. i would even say a lot of help with prescriptions.
>this is any age. does the public option do this?
>

I believe so. Maybe do some more research. Free/no-copay prescriptions are only for generics tho.

>second, the MOOP needs to be reduced greatly for everyone
>else. people should not go bankrupt due to an illness.
>

Well, remember out-of-network costs are capped too. Not the same as a MOOP, no, but it's still a sort of price-control and disincentivizes some of the stuff going on behind the scenes between insurers and hospitals. In the white paper the language seemed to focus a lot on basically outlawing suprise billing. So it seems he prioritized curtailing what and how the private sector can even charge to begin with.

>there also needs to be an adjustment to how the MOOP is
>applied. if you suffer an injury or illness in nov/dec and max
>out the MOOP it should not reset in january. at least not for
>care of the same injury/illness.

Ha! Best thing I learned from that video lol. And agreed.

>
>lastly, i do think everyone needs to have coverage available
>to them that meets the above regardless of what their employer
>offers.
>
>from what i have read the public options lack in giving
>adequate coverage to people. the single payer options maybe go
>a bit too far in helping people who can afford to pay for
>their coverage. i think some tweaks to the single payer
>options would be the bet route.
>

I hear ya. And believe it or not, I actually would try to be open-minded about a single-payer plan that could work and is credibly financed (it would have to be passable and sustainable for me to full-on support it though). Warren "almost" got me lol, bc I do find her M4A attempt more workable than Bernie's. But now that more price tag estimates are rolling in, time to hold them accountable. Can't just be sweeping $10T-$15T deficits under the rug like that running for pres lol I don't care who you are