Skip to main content

View Diary: Say goodbye to Mitt Romney's 2012 aspirations (319 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Conservative case for the public option (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Nose, Norm in Chicago
    There is a very good conservative case for the public option that hasn't been discussed: without the PO, in order to keep the insurance companies from raising premiums at their will and wish (and, at present, only 70% of the premiums collected by the insurance companies goes towards paying for actual care, an unnecessary inefficiency in the system which also goes against conservative principles), the government would have to keep meddling, intervening and micro-managing them, but with a PO or medicare buy-in that is available to all, there is an automatic price-control mechanism that circumvents the need for meddling with private companies any more than what is absolutely  necessary.
    •  Further, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Nose, Norm in Chicago
      the PO can't be called "government takeover" because enrolling in the PO would be entirely voluntary. Therefore, the PO system would be only as large (or small) as people want it to be.
      •  It has to be the PO or mandates (0+ / 0-)

        Romney is right, we can't allow people to go their whole lives without insurance, then show up at the ER expecting care.  The only way to ensure everyone is taken care of, that sick kids aren't dropped, is to spread the costs across 300 million people.

        That's why single payer makes so much sense, but until we get there, it's either insurance mandates or a public option that is attractive enough in price to pull people in.

        Without bringing more people into the pool, the reforms will simply make health insurance more and more expensive, giving employers all the more excuse to fire workers and outsource jobs, or to drop coverage all together.

        The insurance companies may very well end up comitting suicide as they attempt to maintain their profit margin, but they're going to hurt millions of people as they go down swinging.

        •  yes we can (0+ / 0-)

          Romney is right, we can't allow people to go their whole lives without insurance, then show up at the ER expecting care.

          why not? After all, that's how things have been done for the past 200 years, and nobody complained about it THEN--indeed, all the wingers cited that very thing as the reason why we don't need HCR anyway.  It's only now that the corporados have to pay for it, that they have begun to how in righteous indignation about it.

          A mandate WITHOUT a public option is just welfare for the insurance companies. (shrug)

          I say FUCK their "risk". Let them pay for it.  They are the largest and richest companies in the world--they have more money than most COUNTRIES do.  So their heartfelt sobbing about losing some money doesn't earn a lick of sympathy from me.  They just got, by law, 30 million new costumers for life. They can afford to foot the bill for people who their mandated shitty high-deductible junk insurance plans won't allow to see a doctor.  

          The corporados can well afford it, and I doubt any insurance execs will find themselves poor and sleeping under a bridge because of it. So fuck 'em.

          And if they don't like having to write out a big check every once in a while, then let them shut their doors, close up shop, go out of business, and and disband the company. Then the government can go ahead and do what it SHOULD have done in the first place -- take over the entire healthcare financing industry.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site