This is actually a pernicious falsehood, and since you don't seem to oppose the public option, you should probably not be spreading it. The public option is NOT redistributive. At least as of the version of the bill I read, it was clearly spelled out that it would be funded ONLY by premiums, and in no way by taxes or subsidies.
There _is_ a provision in the bill for people under 3x the poverty line to get subsidized care, but this is effectively a voucher program -- it applies whether they get public or private insurance.
For the most part, the public option is no more redistributive than any private plan. Both redistribute money from those who happen not to make claims, to those who happen to make claims -- this is the purpose of insurance.
There is one sense in which the bill could be said to be redistributive; it requires everyone to have insurance, even if they are healthy, and in that sense it _does_ redistribute wealth from the healthy to the sick. But that provision is _independent_ of the public option. It applies even if the public option does not pass.
no subject
There _is_ a provision in the bill for people under 3x the poverty line to get subsidized care, but this is effectively a voucher program -- it applies whether they get public or private insurance.
For the most part, the public option is no more redistributive than any private plan. Both redistribute money from those who happen not to make claims, to those who happen to make claims -- this is the purpose of insurance.
There is one sense in which the bill could be said to be redistributive; it requires everyone to have insurance, even if they are healthy, and in that sense it _does_ redistribute wealth from the healthy to the sick. But that provision is _independent_ of the public option. It applies even if the public option does not pass.