As I sat down to eat my boring pizza, I started thinking about Herman Cain’s rise to the top of the GOP field.  I suppose the fact that he was a former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza had something to do with that.  Specifically, I was thinking about his signature 9-9-9 tax plan and what a brilliant job he has done marketing it.    For most Americans, making sense of the current tax code is like asking a newborn baby to recite William Shakespeare.  On how to turn the economy around, most of the current GOP candidates have stuck to boiler plate Republican ideas that mainly cut taxes for the wealthy while doing virtually nothing for middle and working class families.    Hardly anything we haven’t heard before countless times.  Mitt Romney released his 59-point economic plan back in September.  Quick…name at least 3 of those points off the top of your head right now.  Didn’t come up with any?  Me neither.

But 9-9-9 gives us something different.  It gives people something they “think” is just so simple.  I mean, a flat 9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, and 9% national sales tax. Pretty simple, right? As Cain says himself, “If 10% is good enough for God, then 9% ought to be good enough for the Federal Government.”  Now, 10% may in fact be good enough for God, but God didn’t run up a $14 trillion-dollar deficit, and with all of the other GOP “saviors” crashing and burning, Cain saw an opening and took it.   Seemingly a long shot just a few short months ago, Mr. Cain is now leading most early primary states, and has even led in few national polls…all thanks to the branding of 9-9-9.

Of course, once the spotlight shifted away from the Romney-Perry dogfight for a few minutes, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan went under attack, and rightfully so.  It would be a disaster if ever signed in to law.  Jon Huntsman, who I believe is a very pragmatic candidate, and therefore has no shot at winning the GOP nomination, had one of the best debate one-liners I’ve heard in while.

“The first time I heard of it, I thought it was the price of a pizza”

Huntsman was close.  Another pizza chain, Dominoes, used to offer a 5-5-5 deal.   Now, anyone that has ever ordered Dominoes can attest that it’s pretty bad pizza, but for $5, at least you were saving a few bucks.  Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is worse.  Not only is it a bad idea, but most people will end up paying more in the long run.

9-9-9 is a brilliant scheme to deliver deeper tax breaks to the wealthy, while punishing low income families.  This is not surprising given Mr. Cain’s recent statements:

“Don’t blame Wall Street. Don’t blame the big banks. If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”

 ”It took our nation nearly 250 years to end slavery and live up to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. It should not take us another 250 years to cease the involuntary negative return most working people receive from Social Security, or the involuntary servitude imposed by the oppressive income tax code.”

Under 9-9-9, low income families will end up paying more.  A lot more.  Republicans hate the fact that up to 46% of low income earners pay no federal income tax, and in same cases, even get tax rebates.

When President Obama proposed that his $447 billion American Jobs Act be paid for by imposing a slight increase on taxes for the top 1%, Congressional Republicans demanded that the 46% pay taxes first before their precious millionaires got dinged.

The reality is that low income families do in fact pay some taxes in the form of payroll and other state or local taxes.  The reason they may not pay any federal income tax is due to the deductions they are legally entitled to.  For instance, a couple with 2 children who earn less than $26,400 would pay no income tax after considering the standard deduction of $11,600 and 2 $3,700 exemptions for the children.   With 9-9-9 in effect, that same family would receive a federal income tax bill of almost $2,400. On top of that, they would also have to pay an additional 9% sales tax on anything they buy, which would be in addition to any state and/or local sales tax already in place.  In a state like Alabama, which has a 10% sales tax, and no exemption for food or clothing, adding a 9% national tax, results in a total sales tax of 19%!    A $200 grocery bill that would normally become $220 with sales tax, would jump to $238 under 9-9-9.   Ultimately this will cause low income families to have less take home pay, which means less money that they are spending on goods and services.  And if people are spending less, then there is less demand, which means less incentive for businesses to hire workers again.

Not surprisingly, New Hampshire, which actually has no income tax, is the one early voting state, that is not looking good for Cain.  Some of that may have to do with Mitt Romney’s ties to the area, but I suspect people up there don’t like what they see in 9-9-9.  Being the only state in New England without a sales tax, New Hampshire brings in a lot of business from around the region.   If 9-9-9 went into effect, I doubt people would make the same effort.

What’s worse is that 9-9-9 would actually grow the deficit.  In it’s current form, it would not generate the same amount of revenue as today’s tax code does.  Of course, recent history shows that Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat occupies the White House.  The debt ceiling debacle that took place over the summer was more about sticking it to President Obama than actually being sincere about fixing the economy.   After all, it’s hard to take people like  House Speaker John Boehner seriously when he voted for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war, Medicare Part D, and TARP!

Yet, given all of the debunking of Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan, a new University of Iowa poll out today gives him a 10 point lead of Romney.  Cain also placed first in the Western Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in Nevada.

Despite all of this, I firmly believe Herman Cain will NOT end up being the GOP nominee.   9-9-9 is the least of his problems.  He has no clue on foreign policy and would get obliterated on that subject in a debate with President Obama, who has gotten some very big wins over the past few months, including the recent death of Moammar Qadahffi in Libya.  Mr. Cain has also made several incendiary remarks while campaigning that can easily be turned into negative ads against him.

But for now, we are stuck with Mr. 9-9-9 for a little while longer.  Eventually, I believe people will come to their senses and realize that Cain and 9-9-9 are just not good for them, much like a deep-fried twinkie.

Immediately following their big night, Republicans started laying out their plans for the 112th Congress.  Repealing health care.  Investigations in the Obama Administration.  Tax cuts for the rich.    These are the top priorities for Republicans starting next year – all aimed at “making sure President Obama is a one-term president” as stated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

But here’s the thing – we are still in 2010.  And in 2010, Democrats hold a large margin in the House as well as 59 seats in the Senate.   The Democrats need to stop worrying about what’s coming in 2011 for a moment, and work especially hard at doing something good for the American people during the final days of their outright majority.

Unemployment is stubbornly stuck at 9.6%.  Republicans believe that extending all of the tax cuts is the only way to boost jobs and get that rate down.  Of course, many Republicans also believe President Obama is a secret Muslim on a personal crusade to destroy America and put everyone under Sharia law.   Obama and the Democrats want to let those tax cuts lapse for the top 2% of incomes – a move that would save approximately $700 billion from hitting the deficit.  So, in essence, both parties agree on 98% of the tax cuts and are going to fight about whether Warren Buffet should continue to pay less in taxes than his secretary.

Extending the tax cuts either way is fiscally bad for the nation.  The Congressional Budget Office studied the potential effects of various policy options on job growth and economic stimulus and found that while extending the tax cuts would have modest short term effects on job creation, in the long run, they would saddle us with so much more debt over the next 10-20 years, that any short term growth would quickly be squashed by the effect of increased interest payments on the debt.  According to the CBO, there are more effective and less costly ways to attempt to boost job and economic growth – such as increasing unemployment assistance and reducing employer and employee payroll taxes.

Let’s face it. Republicans do not want the unemployed finding work anytime soon.  If their number 1 goal is to remove Obama, as McConnell has said on more than one occasion, then trying to find compromise with Democrats would be counterproductive to that goal.  Therefore, it is crucial that the Democrats “man up” during this lame duck session and force the hand of the Republicans.  Force the Republicans to defend tax cuts for millionaires that don’t need them.   Claiming that millionaires create jobs is a hollow argument, considering that we’ve had a net loss of jobs since 2003 when both tax cuts were set in place.

If the Democrats have learned anything from the past 2 years, it should be that Republicans do not compromise unless the compromise is the Democrats voting for 100% of what the Republicans want.   In these final days of 2010, the Democrats need to show some muscle and prevent themselves from caving.  Whether it’s tax cuts or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, they need to show their base that they care about the average American.

If Democrats want to set themselves up for 2012, they need to use this lame duck session to appeal to the middle class.  They need to paint the Republicans as hypocrites who rail against the deficit with one hand, and demand debt busting tax cuts with the other.  They need to give the liberal and moderate base hope that 2010 was just a hiccup and not a growing trend rightward.

You wouldn’t know it by watching the cable news, but Democrats are STILL in charge.  They just need to believe it for themselves.

Current public polling suggests that a majority of Americans are opposed to the comprehensive bill despite the fact that they seem to approve of its individual components like banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions, allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, and its positive impact on deficit reduction.    Back in the early 1960′s a huge slice of Americans opposed many of the provisions outlined in the Civil Rights Act.    For example, according to the Gallup Poll, in June 1963, only 49% of those surveyed approved of desegregation in public places.  On the question of whether schools should allow children of all races, the numbers were a bit better with 63% approving, but still an alarming 35% disapproving.

Today’s debate on health care reform is split along party lines.  In the 1960′s, the split was geographical, with the north highly in favor, and the south vehemently opposed.  Ironically, more Republicans supported the final bill than did the Democrats despite President Johnson being a Democrat himself.

Back then, people were discriminated against because of their skin color.  Today, people are discriminated against because of their medical condition.

This past week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that elected officials need to do what’s right for the American people even if that may cost them victory in their elections.  In 1964, upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson declared of the Democratic Party, “We have the lost the South for a generation.”

But just like in 1964, when President Johnson realized that racial inequities were simply no longer tolerable in America, our leaders today, must understand that leaving 30-50 million Americans without proper access to health care is also no longer tolerable.  And while the Democrats did lose the South after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, it became the shining moment of Johnson’s presidency (until the Vietnam War got in the way).    Who can argue that the Civil Rights Act was one of the most important pieces of legislation in our nation’s history?   Certainly, Johnson could have caved at the threat of losing an entire bloc, but instead, he correctly recognized that sometimes policy trumps politics.

So, here we are again, faced with another important piece of legislation that if passed, will finally go a long way toward ending years of discrimination and inequality in our nation’s health care system.  Once again, we face a polarized electorate on this important issue.  Once again, initial polling suggests that more people are opposed to it.  But if Democrats get their act together and pass this thing through reconciliation, it will be right up there with the Civil Rights Act in terms of significance in our history.

Today, there are many older African-Americans who can tell their grandchildren about a time in our country when they were treated as inferior citizens simply because of the color of their skin.   Imagine, in 20-30 years time, grandparents being able to tell their grandchildren about a time long ago when people were treated as inferior citizens simply because of a pre-existing condition.

President Obama, with his trademark cool demeanor, and mastery of policy, made the House GOP look like a group of petulant children, whining because someone took their favorite toy away.

I found the president’s reply to Rep. Hensarling, especially delightful…

And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade.

Had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren’t paid for, you had a prescription drug plan — the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades — that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals, and then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession.

That’s $8 trillion. Now, we increased it by $1 trillion because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus.

I am happy to have any independent factchecker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said.

While the session was great theater and reaffirmed why Obama was elected, not all of my questions were answered.  So, I thought I’d take the opportunity to put forth my questions for the GOP.  Unlike the president, I doubt I will get a response from John Boehner, but nevertheless…

Question 1: Since the Republicans claim that they have better solutions for solving the health care crisis, why is it that when your party controlled Congress from 1994-2006, not a single health care reform bill ever made it onto the floor…even when your beloved President George W. Bush proposed giving $7,500 and $15,000 tax credits for buying medical coverage back in 2004…when you ran Congress?

Question 2: At what point will the Republicans realize that they are the MINORITY party and cannot and do not deserve to have a MAJORITY of their ideas formulated into legislation?

Question 3: Should the Republicans somehow regain control of Congress after the 2010 midterms, what will the official party excuse be when the Democrats turn the tables and say “NO” to everything your party proposes?

Question 4: When will Republicans pass 1st grade math and realize that “across the board” tax cuts means less revenue, which in turn means MORE deficit spending?

Question 5: When will Republicans tell people to stop looking foolish by wearing tea bags on their heads and wasting an otherwise fine beverage?

So, there you have it…any Republicans want to respond?

So why was Lieberman for buying into Medicare before he was against it?  “It was different back in 2000,” says Lieberman.  In many ways he is correct.  Back then, we had a budget surplus and Medicare was not on the brink of bankruptcy.  Also, there were less providers that were unsatisfied with the reimbursement rates.  Nine years later, Medicare does face a load of problems from rampant fraud to very low reimbursement rates for many providers, especially in rural areas.  Throw in the added budget deficits, and one can almost understand Lieberman’s opposition to the Medicare compromise.

Don’t get me wrong.  I feel that Sen. Lieberman is still a turncoat in disguise and is harmful to good comprehensive health care reform.  Despite his claims to the contrary, one has to wonder just how much the insurance companies, which are plentiful in his home state of Connecticut have his ear.  But the bottom line is that with the current makeup of the Senate, there is no way that any form of a public option is going to make it.   But despite the lack of a public option, the Senate bill does offer several elements that will make a positive impact.  Prohibiting denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.  Subsidies for lower-income earners.  A new health insurance exchange.  Consumer friendly protections.  These are key components that all Democratic members agree are needed immediately.

Sure, I wish Harry Reid didn’t have to cave in to Sen. Nelson and allow the insurance companies to retain their anti-trust exemption.  Sure,  I wish there was some form of a public option.  This bill is just a start, and a start that after decades of inaction will finally put us on the path of real health care reform.

Ideally, the blame for the watered down version will fall squarely on the conservative wing of the party.  Lieberman.  Nelson.  Lincoln.   Hopefully this is their last go around in the Senate and get voted out in their respective primaries in favor of more progressive candidates.   Perhaps then, in 5 or 10 years, we can come back and revisit the public option and in fact pass it.

So for now, let Joe Lieberman have his way.  And in 2012, the voters of Connecticut can stand up and have theirs.

Now, some of the points in their “test” do make some sense regardless of which side you are on; such as “Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat“.

But as expected, most others are designed to essentially purge anyone in the middle and leave only those on the far right.  Opposition to cap and trade, abortion, and gay marriage.   Support of troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan as the only path to victory in both wars.  Renunciation of “Obama-style government run health care”.

Essentially, you need to believe that people should have easier access to an AK-47 than to affordable health care.

Personally, I am quite delighted with this resolution as I believe it will push some decent moderate Republicans out of the party paving the way for the coronation of Sarah Palin as Queen of the Wingnuts.

I am so delighted, that I decided to come up with my own 10-point Republican purity test that I believe more accurately determines if someone is a true Republican in 2009.   So here it is:

1.  You believe it is fine to spend trillions of dollars on a useless war in Iraq, but it is disastrous to spend billions of dollars on fixing our own infrastructure to create jobs.

2.  You believe that global warming is a myth because it was not foretold in the Book of Revelation.

3.  You believe that it is not OK to pass enormous deficits on to our grandchildren, but it IS OK to puff cigarette smoke in their faces.

4.  You believe that any proposal coming from a Democrat is automatically socialist no matter what it is and will result in Adolf Hitler rising from the grave and taking over America.

5.  You like YOUR government run health care so much that you don’t want to share.

6.  You believe leaving the country to cheat on your wife is not an impeachable offense, but doing so in your office is.

7.  You believe Sarah Palin is actually the second coming of Jesus Christ.

8.  You believe in states’ rights, but only for states that oppose gay marriage.

9.  You believe that health care reform will violate Americans personal freedoms, but secret government wiretapping does not.

10.  You believe as a God fearing, pro-life person, that it is perfectly acceptable to kill an animal in cold blood, stuff it, and mount it over your fireplace.

Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi is not able to smile for too long, as it is clear that the landmark bill just passed by the House is pretty much DOA in the Senate.    And I am not sure if there is any amount of cajoling President Obama can do at this point to change the minds of the few conservative Democrats, along with independent flip-flopper Joe Lieberman, that are seriously threatening to kill the legislation as long as it contains the public option.

Despite the fact that the majority of Americans WANT some form of a public option, a few Democratic senators are willing to go against their constituents and side with the Republicans and the insurance companies.    It is becoming quite apparent that if HCR is going to pass muster in the Senate, liberals may have to give up an immediate public option in exchange for a “trigger”, which certainly doesn’t sit well with many on the left, including myself.

So, in all this hoopla and hysteria over the public option and whether or not it would lead to the end of freedom as we know it, I wanted to take a deeper look at how other civilized nations deal with public healthcare and why their citizens are much more satisfied than we are.

As we all know, our neighbors to the north have completely state run health care, known as Medicare, for which our own Medicare program is modeled after.  Some of the latest surveys show that over 85% of Canadians are happy with their government healthcare, even though they do experience wait lists for non-critical procedures from time to time.  In fact, there was a recent push by individuals within the Canadian government to move to a more American style of insurance through private insurers, and Canadians overwhelmingly rejected it.  Still, despite how many millions of Americans want a single-payer system, it’s not going to happen in our lifetime.

Most other European nations have strong public health care as the leading source of coverage.  The UK, France, Italy – all strong publicly funded.  However, there is one exception, that quite frankly I am surprised nobody in this country seems to be talking about as a good model to build on – the Netherlands.

In the Netherlands, health care is provided as a dual system – a combination of public and private insurance.  People pay a fixed percentage of their income to the government to fund the public portion which only covers major hospitalizations and disability coverage.     For all short-term illnesses and medical treatments, citizens are required to carry insurance from a private company.    The best part, is that the private insurance business in the Netherlands is very tightly regulated.   In fact, providers are required to charge everyone the same premiums regardless of age or health condition.  The government uses a scheme called risk equalization which subsidizes the insurance companies for taking on higher risk patients.  This in turn, leads to a sense of equality and fairness within the industry and would seem to meet the very same goals we are trying to achieve here in the U.S.

• Coverage for all, regardless of condition
• Low premiums
• Access for all citizens

Furthermore, healthcare costs are spread between employers, individuals, and the government, much like in the U.S.  Employers typically pay 50% of the cost, individuals kick in 45%, and the government funds the remaining 5%.And recent surveys show that the Dutch have the highest satisfaction with their healthcare out of all major industrialized nations.  And why not?  Their system actually encourages insurance companies to take on more high risk patients, since they know that they will get a subsidy.  Patients cannot be refused coverage, and doctors remain highly profitable.

The best part, is that it would seem that this type of system could be implemented much easier than  sweeping legislation going through Congress right now.    The key is in the tight regulations.    There would still be the public portion for major expenditures which would take the burden off of the private insurers, and the insurance companies would have to play by strict rules, but would be getting millions of new customers.

So, if health care reform fails this time, perhaps we should not be looking to the North for the solution, but rather across the Atlantic.

Now that the elections are over and both the Virginia and New Jersey statehouses have been reclaimed by Republicans, there is much debate over what this means for the Democrats, and more specifically, President Obama.    Does this signal the resurgence of the Republican party and death to Democrats?  Hardly, though it should be a stern wake up call for the President.

To be honest, I truly expected the Democrats to lose in Virginia and my childhood state of New Jersey.  The Democratic candidates in both states were just awful compared to their Republican counterparts.  In Virginia, Creigh Deeds had a very difficult time connecting with voters, was not the best public speaker, and gave Democrats little to be hopeful for when he said he would opt out of Harry Reid’s public health plan option.  Hammering his opponent, Bob McDonnell, on his graduate school thesis proved to be a non-issue with this electorate; an electorate that was nothing like that in 2008.  This time around, African-Americans, and young voters decided to sit this one out.  Maybe they were too busy setting up “V” watch parties.

In New Jersey, Gov. Corzine flat-out deserved to be ousted.  I believe he lost the election when he got caught having a NJ State Trooper drive him at 90 mph while not wearing a seat belt.   In my opinion, it became the classic example of the divide between the rich and powerful and the rest of us schlubs.     Throw in the highest property taxes in the nation, sprinkle in some pretty hefty corruption,  add some ties to the corporate greed on Wall Street, and voila – you’re out of a job!    And it’s not like Chris Christie was the awe-inspiring candidate that Obama was last year.  Hardly.  In fact, Christie never really articulated a firm position on any substantive issue and constantly gave vague answers about his plans as governor.   He’s gonna fight corruption and lower taxes.  To quote the great Dana Carvey, well isn’t that special?   Christie won for not being Jon Corzine.   The Republicans could have put up ANYONE and they were pretty much assured victory.

So the Republicans were feeling pretty darn good about these big victories, until the grossly overexposed results in the NY-23 Congressional election came in, and for the first time since 1872, a Democrat is going to represent that district.  And as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night,  the WHIG party has represented NY-23 more recently than a Democrat!  So what happened in this reliably conservative district?  The Republicans self-destructed and clearly showed why these 2009 elections should not give them a sense of hope for the 2010 mid-terms and beyond.    As the more extreme right-wing of the party rejected the official Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, in favor of Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, I believe the people of NY-23 took a longer look at what was happening in their district and got spooked.  For one thing, this Hoffman guy couldn’t explain nor understood any of the local issues that voters in that district might be concerned about.   Add the fact, that prominent national Republicans, such as Dick Armey suggested that local issues didn’t matter in that election.  Throw in the fact that Hoffman claims that Glenn Beck is his mentor, and that’s one scary candidate – even for a conservative district like NY-23.

So what’s the lesson in all of this?  I believe it’s that voters continue to demonstrate that they like their politicians in the center.  They like them to be a bit liberal on the social side, and more conservative on the fiscal side.  They don’t like extreme candidates on either side of the spectrum and in an off year election are more likely to stay home if the candidate of their party is terrible.

Next year, we face huge mid-term elections in which all 435 House seats are up for grabs along with 1/3 of the Senate.  If the Democrats want to remain in power they have got to do two things – PASS healthcare THIS YEAR and pray and hope that jobs start coming back.    President Obama needs to stop trying to get bi-partisan consensus and start whipping his party into shape.  He needs to be putting pressure on lunatics like Joe Lieberman, who, for one of the few times in history, is threatening to filibuster with the opposition.  He literally needs to smack Harry Reid upside the head and tell him that healthcare must pass THIS YEAR.

So, I will let the Republicans enjoy their victories tonight.  To their credit, they ran better campaigns in Virginia and New Jersey than the Democrats.  But if the Democrats are smart, and god I hope they are, they will see this as an opportunity to come together and get things done, otherwise they might as well be a bunch of lizards in disguise.

Will Harry Reid ignore the fact that on any given day, at least 65% of Americans strongly support the creation of a public option, or will he continue to be weak and water it down to avoid fear of filibuster?   Let’s also consider that the House bill also has a strong public option component and enjoys far greater support than the Senate.

If anything, the health care industry’s last minute scare tactic,  a flawed PriceWaterhouseCoopers report warning of higher premiums if health care reform passes, SHOULD be the tipping point for those conservative Democrats still wavering on the public option.    Perhaps they ought to follow Republican senator Olympia Snowe’s reasoning…”When history calls, history calls.”

My hope is that when all is said and done, the Democratic caucus will wise up and realize that they do have a chance to do something historic here that can once and for all provide quality health care for all Americans.    However, hope and politics often don’t go hand in hand.  So, should a robust public option NOT be included in the final legislation, here are my ideas on how to pass reform that doesn’t have a public option, but sort of does.

1.  Repeal the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act.

This law essentially exempted the insurance industry from anti-trust regulations and allowed them to set up monopolies.  In many states, there is typically only one provider around…usually Blue Cross Blue Shield.    It’s time to end this foolishness and allow other providers to move in and offer real choice to consumers.

2.  Give states the ability to create state funded health plans

This is an idea being floated around by Delaware senator Tom Carper.  Under his plan, states could set up co-ops, extend the state employee plan to all residents, or even setup a real public option.   Or, they could do nothing.    For states that do wish to setup a public option, they could receive some start up seed money from the federal government.   And for states that don’t wish to participate,   I hope the governor can make a compelling argument as to why he/she doesn’t want to create fair competition in his/her state.

3.  Allow people to order prescription drugs from Canada, or make the insurance provider match the price

If a person can demonstrate that they can purchase the same prescription in Canada at a cheaper price than their insurance plan is willing to pay, then they should either 1) be allowed to get the prescription filled in Canada or 2) the insurance provider must match the price.    Tight regulations would need to be put in place to avoid fraud, but this could potentially save people a lot of money…especially senior citizens.

4.  If all else fails, let the federal government step in

If all of the above stated regulations are put in place and for some reason a person still cannot find affordable coverage, then he/she should be able to request assistance from the federal government under the Medicare umbrella.  These situations should be few and far between, but necessary to bridge any gaps in coverage for all legal citizens and residents.  This would not be a public option in the sense that it would be out there competing with all of the other plans.  This would only be for cases where coverage was unobtainable by all other methods.

Again, my desire would be for a national public plan as I believe it is the best way to keep insurance companies in check.  However, if the reality is that our elected leaders are going to put politics over priorities, then perhaps something like this is the next best thing.    They just need to get it done.

But this got me thinking.  If our elected leaders can’t (or won’t) articulate the wishes of the people that elected them, then there has to be a way for us, as voters, to tell them point blank what to do.  So, I thought to myself, why not create a national ballot question to appear on all ballots nationwide this Election Day.  Let the public decide once and for all if we want Congress to create a public health insurance option.  Hey, it might actually get more than 7 people to the polls, who would otherwise stay home than go out and vote for their local sheriff.

Why not put it to a national vote and make the results binding?  It’s simple – if more than 50% vote YES, then Congress would have no choice but to create a public plan.    It takes away all of the bickering…all of the lobbying….and all of the excuses.  Perhaps then, Mr. Boehner might actually find a person or two that supports the public option.    Maybe even in Ohio.