"Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper." -- Rep. Michele Bachmann accidentally making the case for the public option.Since when is something 30-40% cheaper a bad thing. Does she not realize that every paycheck, if my employer offers health care, a payment goes toward health insurance? Now if that payment is 30-40% less, not only is that good for me, but it's less overhead for my company. For individuals and businesses alike, this is great news.
Having a cheaper, more competitive public option perplexes the Republicans because they won't know how to get paid off by the lobbyists and the Medical companies.
Source: Minnesota Independent
4 comments:
Democrats control the White House, have a 38+ seat margin in the House, and have the 60 Senate seats needed to overcome any filibuster. How can Republicans be holding up health care reform?
While some Democrats are sucking on the Health Care Industry teet, the Republicans are in 100% opposition of reforms. So while your point is valid, my posting was about how, even if cheaper, the GOP would still oppose reform. That was the point I was making.
As for holding up anything, it's just the news cycles trying to make friction. Everything will pass.
One of the many myths is that the public plan will be "cheaper." It's a shell game. A government plan can always be presented to look cheaper, because the true costs are hidden. Costs are passed on to providers in administrative costs and lower reimbursements, resulting in a huge cost-shift to private payers to make up the difference.
One of the concerns of opponents to the public plan is that it will "crowd out" private insurance. It's impossible to believe that Congress and the Administration could resist setting rules—and interpreting those rules—in favor of their own public plan. Independent estimates show that as many as 119 million Americans would no longer be in private coverage.
It does not take a genius to figure out that the end goal is definitely a single-payer system. That's why many supporters of a single-payer system, where the government runs the whole health system, are suddenly converts to choice and private competition as long as there is a public plan.
Thus, your argument that Republicans will oppose "good things" just to spite Obama, like most of your posts, is overly simplistic and not well thought-out.
"Crowd out" private insurance? What about your market economies? As the population ages and people live longer, you're worried about the profits versus the actual care.
Companies offer health to lure employees, not because they love spending money. For example, Japan has universal health, their cars are cheaper because of fewer legacy costs built in, they sell more cars.
Our products will be more competitive.
And I may be simple in some of my posts, but try to explain your Bush trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich and "trickle down" economics or how a war and subsequent occupation in the Middle East are not "overly simplistic and not thought out".
Post a Comment