detlef Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Besides his smarmy voice and liberal elitist, art gallery director garb, that is... Video on the Public Option Is this a lie? Will the Public Option be given an unfair advantage other than the fact that it will be big, and thus able to negotiate better prices? If that is the only advantage, why is this the first time we give two poops about that. Isn't that why we shop at Costco? I mean, this seems to come up in many of the arguments. It won't be a choice for long because the gov't will see to it that private providers are run out of business. How are they going to do this besides stealing customers? Honestly. Are we afraid that the gov't will only do a good job providing insurance long enough to drive the private insurers out of business and then fall back and be crappy? Is it the price tag? Are we absolutely certain that price tag is what the detractors claim it to be? I've heard that the savings will help pay this thing down in no time. Then again, I heard that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, so I'm bit skeptical about that logic. Without devolving into partisan finger pointing (not likely). Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Walmart = big = good because of low prices, never mind the workers crap benefits and all the companies driven out of business Government option = big = bad because of low prices and what about all the poor insurance companies driven out of business I dunno, you tell me. Maybe it's just pointless discussing anything with these people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm From a professor at Duke - contains/explains actual excerpts from the bill HR3200 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Besides his smarmy voice and liberal elitist, art gallery director garb, that is... Video on the Public Option Is this a lie? Will the Public Option be given an unfair advantage other than the fact that it will be big, and thus able to negotiate better prices? If that is the only advantage, why is this the first time we give two poops about that. Isn't that why we shop at Costco? I mean, this seems to come up in many of the arguments. It won't be a choice for long because the gov't will see to it that private providers are run out of business. How are they going to do this besides stealing customers? Honestly. Are we afraid that the gov't will only do a good job providing insurance long enough to drive the private insurers out of business and then fall back and be crappy? Is it the price tag? Are we absolutely certain that price tag is what the detractors claim it to be? I've heard that the savings will help pay this thing down in no time. Then again, I heard that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, so I'm bit skeptical about that logic. Without devolving into partisan finger pointing (not likely). Any thoughts? The part about the savings paying for it all is what concerns me. What and where are these savings? He must know the specifics to be able to say they will pay for the 600 billion - so why not fill us in on what these savings are? Why are you not cleaning them up already? If it is waste then clean up that waste now why wait? It all sounds good but I just can't fathom how we can add so many people to the system and make the system better for everyone who already has and not let anyone ever get turned down or let go and this won't cost me anymore??? Just don't see it happening. Not sure if I caught this right but he did make a point to say no additional taxes for the middle class. That does not mean there won't be additional taxes for the non middle class? Could that help pay for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 The part about the savings paying for it all is what concerns me. What and where are these savings? He must know the specifics to be able to say they will pay for the 600 billion - so why not fill us in on what these savings are? Why are you not cleaning them up already? If it is waste then clean up that waste now why wait? It all sounds good but I just can't fathom how we can add so many people to the system and make the system better for everyone who already has and not let anyone ever get turned down or let go and this won't cost me anymore??? Just don't see it happening. Not sure if I caught this right but he did make a point to say no additional taxes for the middle class. That does not mean there won't be additional taxes for the non middle class? Could that help pay for it? And there's probably the most cogent and concise post I've seen about the cost. I wish one reporter, just one, would ask this question. Can you see that? "Um, Mr. Prez, how are we going to take the most ill people, add all these new people, and not have it cost any more?" Does this really make sense to anyone? I'm sure there are places where administrative savings can be had, but not a trillion worth. If that's the case then why does the bill not get implementation started until AFTER the next presidential election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.