Skip to main content

View Diary: Post exposes an inconvenient truth - insurers will still cherry pick (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sullivan's argument is too narrow (0+ / 0-)

    He doesn't see the forest because he is deep in the terminological trees. He and other's following Hacker don't seem to recognize that Hacker has, like many academics, fallen in love with his theory, and basing his claim on "The Public Option" because he seems to have coined the phrase. Dingell and Kennedy have been working on this issue for decades and really did not need their thinking informed, and certainly not exclusively formed by a professor from Yale.

    Just as I don't need to be informed by the opinion of some lawyer named Sullivan transmitted via a doctor named Coates who is the apparent mouthpiece of an organization with an agenda, i.e. PNHP.

    On my analysis HR3200 does provide a strong, affordable public option and am prepared to discuss why based on my own reading of the bill.

    So I would ask what parts of Sullivan's argument do you find compelling? Because little of it was convincing to me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site