Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (7940)	7/31/2009 12:49:25 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

It's not really different. Public option is back door Universal. Makes no sense any other way. You create an "insurance" Co to compete with private Co's. The public Co enjoys full financial and political support form the Government, and in time "outcompetes" private companies and puts them out of business. That doesn't jibe with the real world experience of the Medicare Advantage plans. And of course just by definition "universal" and adding an "option" are two different things. We could have universal without a public plan... and we could have a public plan without universal. Apples and oranges. Certainly to someone answering a poll question.

To: skinowski who wrote (7940)	7/31/2009 1:32:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

Makes no sense any other way. You create an "insurance" Co to compete with private Co's. The public Co enjoys full financial and political support form the Government, and in time "outcompetes" private companies and puts them out of business. It makes sense as a demonstration project if you think that the public option may fail to compete, which I think is likely. If it does, then we've evidence to beat down the nationalization fantasy. And if it doesn't, then "they" were right and you and I were wrong.