Obamacare

Obama Proposes Fixing Obamacare With a New, Government-Run Health Insurance Plan

President revives public option proposal to foster competition in the health law's exchanges.

|

Whitehouse.gov

In September, 2009, President Obama delivered a primetime address to a joint session of Congress making his pitch for the health care law that we now know as Obamacare. Among the problems that Obama said the law was supposed to address was a lack of competition in the individual insurance market.

"Consumers do better when there is choice and competition," Obama said. "That's how the market works." He lamented, however, that "in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company." The inevitable result was more expensive insurance and worse quality coverage. It was easier for insurers to take advantage of customers.

Obamacare was to solve this problem by creating insurance exchanges—state-based marketplaces where individuals would be able to shop for insurance. These marketplaces would be attractive to insurers. "Insurance companies," Obama said, "will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers."

Almost seven years later, Obamacare is the law of the land, and in several exchanges, the number of insurers is dwindling. In April, after months of warnings, UnitedHealth, the nation's largest health insurer, announced that it would pull out of the most of the state exchanges where it is now operating. Weeks later, another insurer, Humana, announced that it was quitting exchanges in Alabama and Virginia.

What this means is that in many rural areas, Obamacare's exchanges will be served by one and only one insurer. A recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that some 650 counties in states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona, and Oklahoma were likely to have just one carrier next year. In Wyoming, Alaska, and Alabama—yes, the same state that Obama highlighted in his 2009 speech—the exchanges will feature no competition anywhere in the state. In places like these, Obamacare has not solved the problem of too little competition in the health insurance market; it has allowed it to continue, and perhaps even contributed to it.

Yesterday, President Obama put forth another solution—a reform to his original health care reform. In an article for the Journal of the American Medical Association, the president reviews Obamacare's performance, highlighting the law's success in increasing health insurance coverage rates. But the article also serves as a tacit admission that the law is not working as intended, particularly when it comes to competition. Naturally, it proposes further government intervention in the health care sector. 

In the JAMA article, the president proposes creating a government run insurance plan, or a "public option," that would exist alongside private health insurance, at least in the mostly rural areas where competition is sparse or nonexistent. "Congress," he wrote, "should revisit a public plan to compete alongside private insurers in areas of the country where competition is limited."

The public option is an idea that goes back to the original debate about Obamacare. A government-run insurance plan, sold alongside private plans in the exchanges, was high on the progressive wish-list for the law. President Obama raised the possibility of public option in his September 2009 speech, and dismissed critics who argued that it would be a federally funded boondoggle, saying that any "public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects."  

 Ultimately, though, it passed without one.

Instead, the law included a compromise: $6 billion worth of government-backed loans to fund the creation of a system of non-profit health insurers known as co-ops. (That amount was later reduced to $2.4 billion in separate negotiations with Congress.) The administration pitched the co-ops as essentially interchangeable with the public option. "You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan," then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Bloomberg News in 2009. Around the same time, President Obama told Time, "I think in theory you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition" of a public option.

Obamacare resulted in the creation of 23 co-ops across the nation, some of which served hundreds of thousands of customers. As of this month, however, only 10 remain fully operational. The other 13 have either shut down, or announced that they plan to by the end of the year.

The reason for every closing has been the same: Premiums were set too low to cover the cost of medical expenses. The losses mounted. The co-ops couldn't make the finances work. With each closing, tapayers have had to swallow losses for the loans that funded their operations.

Democratic proponents of the plans have argued that Republicans sabotaged them by cutting their funding. But the point of these plans—just as Obama promised of the public option—was that they would be independent and self-sufficient. If the argument is that they could not survive without injections of federal funding, without payments from federal funds to backstop their operations, without political support when they struggle with finances, then the argument is that they cannot compete. There is little reason to believe that a full-fledged public option, entirely run by the government, would fare any better. It would, however, be much harder to shut down, and much more likely to be propped up by additional federal funding if it failed to completely cover its expenses on its own—leaving an ongoing cost to taxpayers rather than the one-time hit incurred by the failures of the co-ops.

To be fair, it is not clear that private insurers are well-suited to compete in the exchanges either. UnitedHealth and Humana are pulling out of the exchanges because they are unprofitable. A small number of companies with backgrounds in Medicaid managed care—where private corporations take over Medicaid caseloads—have been successful in the exchanges so far. But the rest of the market is struggling to break even. Earlier this year, the top official at Aetna, the third largest health insurer in the nation, said that his firm has "serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges." Obamacare's exchanges, in other words, may be inherently flawed in ways that the addition of a new, government-run insurance plan won't fix.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

106 responses to “Obama Proposes Fixing Obamacare With a New, Government-Run Health Insurance Plan

  1. Obvious plan all along was obvious.

    1. Duhhhh, let’s try this George

      1. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $15200 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site.. This is what I do..
        Go here to this… http://www.trends88.com

    2. Remember back when Obama first won and gun sales soared. And pundits were laughing at all the morons for thinking Obama would push gun control despite him saying he totally wouldn’t?

      1. 🙂 And now when he pushes harder for gun control, sales spike even higher!
        Information-Proof people.
        Causes-and-effects are completely unrelated in their “minds.”
        So sad.

        Critical Thinking is DEAD and O is a wonderful example.

    3. Probably, but if things were working better I don’t think you’d see this now, in an election year. As Suderman notes, it’s an admission that things have not gone according to plan, and that is not usually what you want to run on.

      But I think the timing of this is very deliberate. He’s handing Clinton a ready-made issue to run on against Trump. And we all know how much government run healthcare motivates the left.

  2. “President revives public option proposal to foster competition in the health law’s exchanges.”

    Yeah, of course that’s the reason.
    I’ve got a fantastic deal on some real estate, but you’ll have to act quickly!

    1. Nothing says competition like Government!

      1. Well of course.

        The problems that have occurred after the ACA was passed are just signs of market failure, don’t you know.

        It really has NOTHING to do with massive ramp up of government mandates in the ACA !!!!.

        Just ask any leftist and they’ll explain it to ya.

        1. To be fair to the dumbasses, they also blame the KKKOCHTOPUS, Teabagger Rethuglicans, and BOOOSH.

      2. Drake|7.12.16 @ 1:17PM|#
        “Nothing says competition like Government!”

        Competition backed by gunfire.

    2. I just got word that my uncle Nelson Mandela has died, so I’ll be receiving a check for around 286,409,000.00 rand. If you send me your bank details and card information, along with a scan of your driver’s license and passport (if you have one), I’ll have half of that sum delivered to your address.

      1. At the current exchange rate, that makes it about 15c. Hardly worth the effort.

    3. Isn’t that what the Clinton’s brochure for Whitewater said? something about, “Better bring your checkbook!”

  3. “Congress,” he wrote, “should revisit a public plan to compete alongside private insurers in areas of the country where competition is limited.”

    Now’s your chance, Congressional Republicans, to get the stink of Obamacare all over you, too.

    1. “Congress,” he wrote, “should suck my big-ass cock, and do as it’s motherfucking told.”

      http://www.ucreative.com/wp-co…..452134.jpg

      1. Red lightsaber? Revealing. Someone needs to photoshop that lion to look like Scar from the Lion King. And maybe add a sign about “the most dangerous game”.

  4. My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now I am getting paid 17000usd monthly without spending too much time. you can also do this.

    ======== http://www.CareerPlus90.com

    1. I reported this as spam, but I couldn’t find the button allowing me to report the public-option scam.

  5. So those criticisms of the ACA from back in 2009-10, that the left derided as based on pure, unadulterated racism, were…right?

    1. I submit to you as anecdotal evidence

      Since they didn’t have the votes, there would have been nothing. I understand the myth

      that some propagate, but the fact is Medicare for all, the public option, or single payer would NOT have passed. Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson in Nebraska, Nelson in Florida, Lincoln, and other blue dogs made it very clear they would absolutely NOT vote for a public option, Medicare for all, or Single Payer. The votes weren’t there.

      They had a finite amount of time to pass something, and while it has flaws, it also allows people who could not get insurance to get insurance. It expanded Medicaid, though unfortunately the SC ruled that could not be mandatory, so some individual states decided to let to screw their citizens with less means.

      The ACA was a very important first step

      1. Correct – one step at a time. What his and Democrats’ objective was in 2010….

        ….was getting the groundbreaking legislation passed. Almost everyone who voted for it back then admitted that it wasn’t perfect but the important thing was to get a good plan passed that could immediately help millions of Americans, then work on some of the things that would need fixing.

        I think the worst thing now, though, is that it’s taken this long to start address those drawbacks. But under the Congressional conditions the last few years (republican majorities in both houses) trying to address them would have been pointless.

        With this proposal, it could very easily help win Democratic majorities in the House and Senate so something can be done about the ACA next year.

        1. The ACA is the reason Team Red controls Congress right now.

          1. And Trump will be the reason they lose it. Democrats just need to pass something, then keep it alive long enough to get back in power because it’s a certain as the sun rising that Republicans will screw things up.

  6. Is there anything that hasn’t been trashed in society? healthcare, higher education, a whole list of countries we trashed, main street economy… I understand some have roots with bush but geez, this is a mess where we won’t see the real consequences for another 5-10 years. it’s like only the owners of assets and capital are doing well right now//

  7. Democratic proponents of the plans have argued that Republicans sabotaged them by cutting their funding. But the point of these plans?just as Obama promised of the public option?was that they would be independent and self-sufficient.

    It is Supreme Court precedent that the words used to sell Obamacare to the public are meaningless and therefore cannot be taken into account, constitutionally speaking.

    1. Not just the words used to sell Obamacare, but the words actually in Obamacare. Recall that “exchange established by a State,” (where “State” is explicitly defined in the law) actually means “exchange established by a State or not established by a State.”

  8. Don’t entirely misunderstand this imbecile. He may be a complete puppet for the fed, mega banks, and world government stooges but he is also a complete Marxists on certain things. He is stupid enough to think there is a way for free sh*t to happen for black people.
    He is a fascinating mixture of total corruption mixed with utter idiocy and confusion.

    He is a Marxist leftist. They are all the same.

    1. He is stupid enough to think there is a way for free sh*t to happen for black people.

      Don’t you mean blah people, Mr. Santorum?

  9. He’s not proposing this as a fix. He knows full well there’s zero chance it will pass during his presidency, or even under his successor. He’s setting up his excuse for why the ACA is such a miserable failure, which is becoming more clear with each passing year.

    1. Yes, this is just legacy buttressing.

      1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting somewhat baroque.

        1. If it ain’t baroque, don’t fix it.

          1. Did someone just repeat a joke from a Disney movie? Seriously? What the fuck.

            1. Yes, this is just legacy buttdressing.

    2. But how can something that has been such an unrivalled success be a failure?

      For that matter; Who’s on first?

      And that is why politicians exist. To distract and confuse while they enrich themselves with the behind the scenes cooperation between all pols.

      They finally realized that all americans affiliated with all politics were basically asleep at the wheel.

  10. “Well, the free market has obviously failed, right? So it’s time for more government.”

  11. Interesting how we’re what, 20 minutes into the ACA and the supporters are talking about “reform”?

    Given all of the utterly predictable failures and moral hazard created by the ACA, I’m guessing that a government-run insurance plan is the ONLY thing will work because it’s the only thing that can run at a permanent loss.

    1. Please define “work”.

    2. Yes, because the Prog OCD insists on full coverage whether that is an achievable or even desirable goal or not and with scant regard if everyone wants to be included.

  12. Peak Derp – always on the horizon, but forever moving away like the pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow.

  13. Try to resist the urge to tell your idiot Prog friends on Facebook that you told them so. And then, when you buckle five minutes later, do it in all-caps, preferably with a meme, and in comic sans.

  14. I’ve always been a big fan of the idea of government creating its own competitor in the marketplace. Not because I believe in government. Specifically because I don’t, and I would love to see a nationwide government insurance program legitimately forced to compete and end up charging the highest premiums on the market before dying a slow and painful death for everyone to remember the next time some statist starts getting big ideas.

    Unfortunately, as pointed out very thoroughly by this article, you can’t just create such an agency and hermetically seal it away from the Treasury because at the first sign of trouble Congresscritters are happy to cancel all those “self-sustaining” provisions and reach for my wallet.

    Anyways, I suspect this is not so much an attempt to pass single-payer now as it is a primer to get the media primed to give glowing coverage to a future single-payer push in, say, midterms 2018.

    1. But that’s a fallacy. The government-run option doesn’t have to compete, it can charge below-market rates and run at a permanent loss like social security. It can be permanently subsidized from the general fund.

      1. Yep – just like the Brit’s NHS hides its costs via taxes.

        Not that anyone at the Fed will be balancing the budget any decade soon.

        1. The Brit’s NHS costs include long delays and/or total denial of service as well as fiscal costs.

          1. Oh, so you mean like America’s government run health care system–the VA?

      2. But that’s a fallacy. The government-run option doesn’t have to compete, it can charge below-market rates and run at a permanent loss like social security. It can be permanently subsidized from the general fund

        ^THIS! how can anyone who loathes government seriously say a government option is a good thing? They’ll just steal more from us to prop up their low costs, which are designed to fuck with legitimately run businesses that would go bankrupt if they pulled the kind of shit the “government option” bureaucrats could pull.

        1. “THIS! how can anyone who loathes government seriously say a government option is a good thing? ”

          Nobody did.

      3. Oh, I understand; when I say I like the idea of a government-run option, I mean a true market competitor with no government-conferred funding or legal advantages.

        I acknowledge this is more of a thought experiment and less of a possibility given the realities of how US government works.

        1. I’m legitimately fascinated by how many people didn’t even bother to read your comment

      4. It’s almost like you didn’t read this part:

        > Unfortunately, as pointed out very thoroughly by this article, you can’t just create such an agency and hermetically seal it away from the Treasury because at the first sign of trouble Congresscritters are happy to cancel all those “self-sustaining” provisions and reach for my wallet.

    2. In this day and age, it doesn’t even have to have access to the Treasury. Just let it sell bonds and have the Federal Reserve buy those bonds. Presto!

      1. Trillion-dollar platinum coins!!!!

    3. There actually was such a competition to build aircraft in Britain. The government choose to build zeppelins and the private industry choose the build airplanes.

      The private company built several airplanes and got them to customers before the government built its first zeppelin.

      1. Actually, it was better that that. It was the R100 (the “capitalist airship”) versus the Air Ministry’s R-101 (the “socialist airship”). Guess which one crashed and killed nearly everyone aboard? “Among the deceased passengers were Lord Thomson, the Air Minister who had initiated the program me, senior government officials, and almost all the dirigible’s designers from the Royal Airship Works.”

  15. If progressives were/had been serious about compromise, they would have suggested a public option alongside reforms strongly supported by conservatives (such as allowing interstate sales and other widespread deregulation of private insurance). Instead they proposed the public option, didn’t get it, and then instead passed a complex web of subsidies, exchanges, and mandates and called it a compromise because it included a couple of things that a few conservatives and Republicans supported in the 90s (as part of much different overall plans).

    1. They are never serious about compromising. Look at the most recent gun control “debate.” Republicans proposed a plan that (at first glance, I didn’t bother reading it closely because it was doomed to fail) addressed a number of the legitimate due process concerns raised by the no-fly list issue, but rather than getting together to work something out, the Senate voted nearly in lockstep and the House Dems threw a temper tantrum staged a brave and noble resistance.

      1. I thought the uniform Democratic “no” vote on the Republican proposals that actually did slightly advance the Democratic agenda was freaking hilarious. If the media had reported is as “parties both refuse to vote for anything with the wrong letter in front of it” instead of “evil GOP blocks everything”, the Dems might be taking some well-deserved shit for it, but I suspect the number of gun control fans that actually know that Democrats rejected gun control laws is in the ~5% range.

  16. It is absolutely amazing the lengths statists will go to, to emulate the free market they have eviscerated.

    1. I think Obama’s motivation for these sorts of things is as simple as, “Let me golf in peace, man. Here’s something presidential for you plebeians to fight over.”

  17. An unworkable system leading to a public option was the plan all along. These people think they’re clever but they’re as predictable as the sunrise.

    1. The plan’something success depended upon high numbers of young healthy sign ups to pay for the older sick ones.

      Then they younger ones needed were allowed to stay on their parents plan until they were 26 years old.

      Even if it wasn’t designed to fail it was guaranteed to do so

    2. They don’t care if you know that. All that matters is that they can fool enough yokels into supporting it because it sounds nice.

  18. When numerous people predicted that this would be the next step after Obamacare, the left-tards in the media mostly accused us of being paranoid and/or racists.

    Still waiting on that apology…

    1. Still waiting on that apology…

      For the people in question to apologize, they’d have to remember what they said waaaaay back then, and they’re onto The New Derp of The Day.

  19. Public option? Funny, that sounds a lot like the state cooperatives already provided by ACA. That’s gone well — three of the original 23 may survive 2016! That will show those evil private insurers what for.

    1. The difference is that the plans in the exchanges still had to be profitable, or at least had to have losses that would be covered by the bailouts they received.

      A government plan can hemorrhage money without care, and it will just be taken as proof of that a *truly* good and compassionate healthcare system *can’t* be profitable, which is why we need a generous government to fund it without the taint of the profit motive.

  20. Individuals do better in markets, so well just make a sstate owned market? One of us is missing something here

  21. “But the article also serves as a tacit admission that the law is not working as intended, particularly when it comes to competition.”

    Actually the law is working exactly as intended.

    1. Yep, government can ride in on their white horse and pretend to fix the problem. When the new system goes teats up they’ll demand more money.

      1. It is the same ‘ol same ‘ol the left has used forever. Keep throwing sand in the gears until the whole thing collapses and then they can erect their preferred machinery.

        They do it with the economy, society, academia, politics…everything. Chavez and Maduro have been successful in Venezuela with the economy. Whadya wanna bet Maduro announces some kind of collective farms or mandatory state labor resembling the Norks.

        The left has stoked the grievances of Americans to the point where one bad apple cop shoots someone and the streets erupt in violence driven largely by what I heard described this morning in H&R as ‘Obamas disgusting ghetto brownshirts’, a most apt description.

        Obama required a completely inaccurate interpretation of Title IX and lo and behold, mandatory re-education classes popping up all over.

  22. I remember when the people who were arguing that a public option and eventually a single-payer bailout were the intended consequences of Obamacare’s failure by design were denounced as paranoid nutcases, even here at Reason. Obama was delusional, sure, but of obviously noble intention. A good-hearted Pollyanna who legitimately thought his plan would lower prices, increase competition and help Americans. Somehow, “I told you so” doesn’t seem that satisfying under the circumstances.

    1. Don’t forget that they were also accused of wanting poor people, especially minorities, to continue dying on the streets, because that was toats happening all the time back in 2009.

      1. I remember having to step over the corpses on the way to work. I’m sure glad that’s in the past now.

    2. Well, as ENB helpfully instructed us, while the methods used to achieve “social justice” may be distasteful, it’s still a noble goal!

  23. Somebody needs to tell this jackass he’s out of the White House in six months.

    1. That’s the point. He’s handing Hillary a ready-made election issue, and she doesn’t have to look like she is trying to butt in on his legacy.

      1. And when she overwhelmingly defeats Trump she can claim she has a “mandate” for it.

        1. Yes. It’s not just handing Dems control of the Presidency and the Senate. They’ll claim they have a ‘mandate’ for whatever screwed up ideas they can think. I wonder if we’ll survive the next 2 to 4 years.

          1. The lead of “unbeatable” Hillary continues to shrink, with three+ months to go….

    2. Oh, don’t worry, Barry will let us know what he thinks about every issue of the day for decades to come.

    3. He’s trying to steer the debate under the next president.

      1. Next Congress.

  24. God forbid they just did the simple thing and repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow individuals to buy insurance from out of state.

    1. Just like they can’t possibly just remove the unreasonable prohibitions they put on the growth and sale of marijuana, they can never just mind their own fucking business. There has to be more and more and more and more and more rules and regulations and opportunities for graft.

      1. Classic case of government causes the problem and their solution is more government!

  25. Ooh! Ooh! Another luxury transatlantic ocean liner by the wonderful people who brought us the Titanic! Where do I sign up?

  26. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars.it was my previous month’s payout.just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts. it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly.

    Go to the web>>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  27. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars.it was my previous month’s payout.just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts. it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly.

    Go to the web>>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  28. Suderman again misses the facts. The reason some states had little competition is excessive state regulation. In my LP campaign for WA Insurance Commissioner, I kept hammering the decline from 15 or health insurers to two, only one of which was statewide. I lost, of course, but forced a more open market.

    The REAL co-op model was Seattle’s Group Health Co-Op (GHC). GHC is today’s version of the ethnic and fraternal lodges that provided our healthcare prior to FDR. It’s both a co-op and HMO. Doctors are salaried employees of their patients. No fee for service. They run their own pharmacy and hospitals. ZERO claims processing costs. Cheaper than any government plan on earth. With more consumer power than the insurance market. Seattle has two competing co-op HMOs)

    GHC was endorsed by the far left, like Daily Kos. To many on the left a member-owned nonprofit is socialized medicine. EVERYBODY wins. .But …. if widely known, the GHC model would be a severe threat to both public plans and insurance companies … thus a threat to both parties. It disappeared about the time the Rockefeller Democrats signed on to Obamacare. Remember all the backroom deals? Might the far left have demanded dumping GHC for their support? Is the Pope Catholic?

    Trump and Sanders have kicked butt on the R and D establishments. Ours is just as bad. ALL power corrupts.

  29. We could of course do things that would reduce the cost of health care. However all of these accomplish this by cutting someone’s income. Say we repeal prescription laws: Suddenly people no long have doctor visits several times a year, have lab tests several times a year. They now manage their chronic conditions (those of a sort that can be treated, but not cured like high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc) on their own as people could do prior to the passage of these laws in 1938. So primary care doctors take a “hit” to their wallets as people only seek their services when they find it necessary, which is considerably less often than doctors today like. No longer is there a “shortage” of primary care doctors. Their waiting rooms are no longer full. Since patients will likely choose “comfort” over “life span”, there will be fewer nursing home beds needed.

    There is also the effect that people, once they can decide upon the medications they want, will more likely select generic medications instead of brand names. That will reduce the incomes of the drug companies.

    Go a little further and change the standards for hospitals to one allowing multiple tiers, and costs fall even further. No longer do people who need only simple care, perhaps IV’s, oxygen, X-rays (1950 technology) have to pay for their hospital having 2016 level technology. So costs will drop even more there.

    1. There is also the effect that people, once they can decide upon the medications they want, will more likely select generic medications instead of brand names. That will reduce the incomes of the drug companies.

      So you know absolutely nothing about prescriptions in America.

      Or hospitals.

      You’ve also failed to even touch the primary reason for our high health care costs, so you’ve charged off in the wrong direction. We spend more per capita on public healthcare for less than 40% of our population than total healthcare costs in Sweden, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Page 3

      It’s because we’re the only place on earth that can spend $250,000 or more for six more months of life.Over half our total healthcare spending is in the last two years pf life. When Obama was still being honest, he described how his grandmother got a costly hip transplant when she was terminal cancer, and died a few months later.

      As a heart patient, I would kill you if you blocked my biannual checkup and tests. which you also know nothing about.

      Since patients will likely choose “comfort” over “life span”,

      Wanna bet?

      As a general rule, Daily Kos is a bad source for most fiscal and economic matters.

    2. P.S. Do you know what the average life span was in 1938 (when FDR destroyed our health care system)?

  30. Level whatever criticisms you will about the inherent economic issues with “liberal” or “progressive” healthcare models but when push comes to shove I’ll take one of the many more heavily government controlled systems found in the rest of the developed world over the nightmare that is the American healthcare system and I am by no means a liberal or a progressive.

    1. But you are economically illiterate….

      1. Migrant terrorist
        But you are economically illiterate…

        And you are a thug, disgracing libertarianism to site visitors. If that’s your best argument, YOU must be illiterate! Typical from anyone who glorifies feeding “enemies” into wood chippers.

        Go destroy World Net Daily, the Daily Caller and Infowars.com.

        (My own response is below. EXPLAINING in simple respect for those you disagree with)

        (My tone here is in defense of liberfty versus an enemy of liiberty. Woodchippers for freedom???? )

    2. HUH?
      Political healthcare means betting your life, literally, that politicians, in a budget crisis will increase your taxes! Nope.

      In Canada, their system was ruled an unconstitutional threat to human life, citing all the Canadians dying on waiting lists of a year of more. “access to a waiting list is not access to health care.”. In related action, Provinces forced their central government to restore our GDP equivalent of a half trillion dollars .. to reduce waiting times and provide costly diagnostic testing we’ve had since the 50s.

      That link is not Fox or Limbaugh, who indeed lie a lot, but this is the CBC. … a government news agency (like BBC)

      In England, 14 hospitals were condemned for barbaric levels of care. Hundreds of patients had died, after being wheeled into rooms and totally abandoned, Many were found dead in their own excrement. All caused by severe understaffing of nurses, caused by …. spending cuts!!

      I am by no means a liberal or a progressive.

      Just one if their willing victims. England’s death rate is 45% higher than ours IN HOSPITALS. But you, somehow, want Americans to double their own taxes … and switch to such BARBARIC health care. What a guy!

  31. Gee, who could have seen this coming. A government run health insurance plan. Glen Beck and others said this was the ultimate goal, the Single Payer Plan with the government in charge. ObamaCare is accomplishing what it set out to do, destroy the heath insurance market and companies so the government can take over.
    Just what we need, government bureaucrats in charge of our health care. Hey, they run the US Postal Service so unprofitably, The VA is a disaster for veterans health care, care they were promised in return for service to the nation. Then there was the ObamaCare web-site that was run so well…..well where it ran off to is anybody’s guess.
    But Michelle Obama’s friends profited heavily from their failures several times over.

    1. And the stupid party STILL has no alternative to the lying party.
      We’re fucked.

  32. I basically profit close to $10k-$12k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it…Then this work opportunity is for you

    See Here===== http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  33. “Obama Proposes Fixing Obamacare With a New, Government-Run Health Insurance Plan”

    Because our rail system has worked flawlessly since the government took over.

  34. With more consumer power than the insurance market. Seattle has two competing co-op HMOs)
    http://www.s77e.com/les-plus-v…..ssure.html

  35. Showbox Download, Showbox Apk Download, Showbox App Download: Nowadays technology has brought a lot of changes in our lives, especially in education and communication.

  36. President Obama raised the possibility of public option in his September 2009 speech, and dismissed critics who argued that it would be a federally funded boondoggle, saying that any “public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.