Comments on: Grassley specifies objections to public health care option

By: Ian Monroe

Ian Monroe — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:13:44 +0000

I would be OK if the public option was self-funded for most people. The point isn't to provide health insurance subsidized from other sources to the general public (maybe some subsidies to help the uninsured, but obviously private health care isn't worrying about competition from them).

The biggest advantage of switching to the public option is that if the “Washington bureaucrats” give you some bullshit you could call up your congressperson and complain. Having some democracy-provided oversight is much more effective then current situation. Capitalism doesn't work when no one can pick what health insurance they have (since their employers pick, or if they're self-employed once they have a problem its too late to switch).

By: aheff

aheff — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:58:34 +0000

You are missing the point. The public plan would have such an unfair advantage (cost shift, tax-payer subsidized, underpayment to docs and hospitals) that it will be (artificially) significantly less expensive than private sector. Again, its not that it is truly less expensive or better, but it has such an unfair advantage. Guess what? Small to mid size employers will dump their employees onto the public plan, and voila, from this public plan we now have single payer. And do we really want to government running health care??? We cant afford government run care right now-how in the world can we afford it for all?

By: Ian Monroe

Ian Monroe — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:13:44 +0000

By: Ian Monroe

Ian Monroe — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:13:44 +0000

By: aheff

aheff — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:58:34 +0000

You are missing the point. The public plan would have such an unfair advantage (cost shift, tax-payer subsidized, unerpayment to docs and hospitals) that it will be (artificially) significantly less expensive than private sector. This is the trojam horse to single payer.