Sunday, October 25, 2009

What we are in for with "Limited Public Option"

Democrats in Congress are looking at any way possible to save the "public option" for Obamacare. After trying to slip Universal Healthcare to Americans in a "Quickie" bill over the summer, Democrats are advocating cheaper alternatives like "Public Option Lite" or a "Public Option Trigger." The problem is the same. None of these will do the two things that Obama has promised: pay for themselves or provide healthcare for those who can't afford it (without massive government spending. the examples from Canada, Massachusetts and Maine are revealing. Giving everyone healthcare for free doesn't work. The best example is Maine, which couldn't even provide coverage for its uninsured before the plan went bankrupt:

Even Raul Grijalva, one of the loudest proponents of the Public Option, admits that implementing a public option will 1) take three years to implement 2) limit choices of doctors and 3) be expensive:
Yuma Daily Sun
So someone tell me again, why do we want a public option?

No comments:

Post a Comment