Comments on: No Public Option – No Democrat Support

By: proreason

proreason — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:05:21 +0000

“if they remove the gov’t run insurance plan, then what’s the point of the bill?”

a. they aren’t removing it. They are renaming it and putting new hubcaps on it.
b. they won’t remove it.

Health Care could be reformed with numerous simpler and less-risky methods. For example, they could pass a law that forces insurers to accept pre-existing conditions when someone changes plans without a break in service. Or they could pass a bill limitting medical malpractice awards to 2x estimated lifetime care costs.

But they couldn’t care less about reform. If they did, then they would take the simpler, cheaper, safer, more popular, smarter, more likely to improve service approach. That’s the reason we KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that it isn’t about better Health Care for Americans. It’s about expanding government power.

By: electionhangovervictim

electionhangovervictim — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:54:31 +0000

“The public “option” is a government-run insurance plan made available to “compete” with private insurance plans.”
Ok, that’s honestly what I thought…which is why I became confused. I thought that was the whole point of this legislation, so I started to question myself…”well, if they remove the gov’t run insurance plan, then what’s the point of the bill? So maybe public option doesn’t mean what I think it means.”

Damn them for confusing me!

Thank you for your explanations.

By: proreason

proreason — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:39:53 +0000

The “public option” is the libwits’ latest euphamism for government-run healthcare.

In the current formulation, they are pretending that it will be a benevolent competitor to privately-run health plans. In theory, that might be possible. As it’s designed, it will drive private plans out of business within a few short years. Reasons include: the government gets to set whatever fees it wants to pay….do ya think that might be a bit of a competitive edge? (note: there are many other reasons besides that one).

In the “NEW !! IMPROVED !!!!!” version, they call it a “co-op”, with the expectation that people will be fooled into equating it to cuddly farmer coops, or even better, to credit unions, both of which theoretically operate without profits. In reality, the government will continue to dictate the terms of the plans and the reimbursement schedules, so it will do exactly the same thing as the “public option”, under a more lovable name.

Whatever they call it, it’s the socialization of medicine. And so far, in the hundreds of times it has been tried, socialism has always failed as an economic system vs capitalism.

The reasons for that are many, but the easiest one to understand is that capitalism is constantly adapting to the market. Even if governments wanted to do that, they can’t, because they are absolutely bound by whatever the law is. And since there is no competition for the government, bureaucrats have no reason to improve the service. They can’t even imagine better service. Witness, the Post Office vs UPS. The fact that the Post Office doesn’t make a profit doesn’t prevent it from being a horrible 3rd choice to UPS, Fedex, and many other smaller private businesses.

By: pdsand

pdsand — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:39:05 +0000

The public “option” is a government-run insurance plan made available to “compete” with private insurance plans. The liberals are mad because the public option consitutes socialized medicine which is the goal.
It’s all a ruse however, something like brer rabbit saying ‘please don’t throw me in that briar patch’. The “co-ops” that would replace the public option are just the public option by another name. So for democrats to get mad that the public option was replaced with the insurance co-op is all for show.

By: electionhangovervictim

electionhangovervictim — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:18:24 +0000

Ok, don’t roll your eyes when you read my question…I’m genuinely confused and my google searches on the subject matter haven’t helped to clarify anything for me. Maybe I just need to hear it in layman’s terms from one of my fellow patriots.
So, what is this “public option” exactly and why are the dems angry that it’s being dropped? Is that referring to individuals’ choice to maintain insurance? Meaning people won’t be forced into gov’t run coverage if they don’t have private insurance? As a teacher once told me, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. Thanks in advance for not laughing too loudly.

By: Liberals Demise

Liberals Demise — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:01:04 +0000

Too bad we can’t impeach the whole lock, stock and barrel of them!!

By: Right of the People

Right of the People — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:38:20 +0000

Unfortunately most of the CongressCritters will probably “vote their conscience” when it comes to this. We need to flush these 535 bozos and start over.

By: proreason

proreason — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:34:16 +0000

“Without ~~Public Option~~ Freebies, Enthusiasm for Health Care Reform, Especially Among Democrats, Collapses”

To maintain accuracy in Steve’s records, I’ve changed the headline.

By: Liberals Demise

Liberals Demise — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:23:50 +0000

Just because we don’t want it and are vocal about it doesn’t mean these “No Scruple” holders in congress and the senate won’t stab us in the back and side with the “Traitor in Chief”.
Noooooo ……. they know that they are better than us and know far more than we will every possibly know.
I can’t think of a better reason to continue the purge………push their buttons!!