I need to clarify some confusion about an yesterday's post suggesting a "state option."
Thanks for the lively discussion in the comments. I forgot that some states already offer expansive health insurance to citizens. I lived in one - Tennessee that had TennCare. My idea would be for TennCare and every other similar group to open it's doors to paying customers. If you like what they have to offer, or MinnCare or whomever, you can buy that insurance. States with their own GSE insurance agency would be encouraged for all the reasons provided in the comments to expand their own not-for-profit pool as large as it can be.
It wouldn't matter if your state was rich, poor, big, small, progressive, or a wholly owned subsidary of Haliburton, the law would say 1. states can open up their Medicare or other insurance option to paying customers. 2. All insurance agencies including private, not-for-profit and state-run must meet minimum standards. 3. No insurer can not offer different plans to residents of different states.
Take for example my state of Kentucky. The state self-insures it's state employees but a private company administers the plans. Under this bill, we would be encouraged to create our own insurance company to administer the plan, PLUS accept non-state employees who want to pay for it.
It's basically uber-competition. And like the comments pointed out - it's basically like the Mega-Powerball, except insurance. No one has to participate if they don't want to.
And just to clarify some student loan myths, please don't blame any bank, lender or student loan program because you or someone you know can't pay their student loan. Seriously, this is what conservatives like Rush & co. get on us all the time. If you took out a loan, it's your responsibility to pay it back. Don't expect someone else to. If you think tuition is too high (I do), then blame the schools and look for reforms there first.
Second, NO college or university switched to Direct Loans because they were getting soaked by private loans. Private loans are entirely different from the FFEL- Direct Loans debate. Also, don't take what Robert Shireman & others at the Dept. of Education say as Gospel. Do some research. The proposal to end FFELP is just as likely to cost more than FFELP costs the US government now. It's not like the President is proposing anything that would help student borrowers in any way. It would just change who they deal with and force the middle class borrowers to forever shoulder the burden of an iffy entitletment program. If you want to debate this, fine. Just please have the facts.
What student loans have to do with the state health care model is that most states have their own student loan agencies. Borrowers can actually choose ANY lender they want right now. Those agencies use their "profits" to help fund college-related programs like addressing teach shortages.