The basic goal is to set a "public option," which can use government power to set prices, mandate costs, not be taxed, and doesn't need to make a profit, up against a "private option," which will be taxed, penalized, heavily-regulated, and has to make money or die.
This isn't "competition."
Do you honestly think that the first time the "public plan" goes into the red, they'll keep to that "don't dip into general revenues" rule?
Why is Medicare going broke? If government health care is so spectacular, why did Walter Reed suck?
There's a reason they have to try and hammer this stuff through before anybody can think about it.
A good rule of thumb is that if someone tells you a law has to be passed NOW NOW NOW or everything will go to hell, then you're being set up. Applies to ANY administration.
Current Events » in reply to Some answers to the critics of a Public Option
They can blow smoke all day long.
