i like the [chuckles] makes me thinki the dude probably talks like old mr. rogers.

the insanity is way out of the box these days among the repubs; you'd think they would listen to themselves talking or revisit the video...

You are missing his point, perhaps deliberately. Republicans are against anything that reminds them of socialism, whether it works or not. The idea of being on a public run system is unbearable to them.

But, the next question I woudl ask is: is the public option designed to work, if EVERYONE moves over to it?

Republicans are against anything that reminds them of socialism, whether it works or not. The idea of being on a public run system is unbearable to them.

This is correct. For Republicans, "public" is bad no matter how good it is. This is precisely what it looks like to be beholden to an ideology.

.
Our first violation of basic conservatard principles was opting for a socialistical "public" military, which pretty much put the free enterprise warlords and private Mom & Pop militias out of business. Next thing you know, they were trying to pry our bazookas out of our cold dead hands! But I still intend to be buried with mine.

Likewise on the universal single-payer national healthcare. You might as well just tell poor people that anyone can be healthy, regardless of class! Where's the incentive in that? If you can get the same healthcare as me without being born rich, why should you bother to be born rich? Socialism!

I'm against this so-called public option unless it doesn't kick in till after a "Plague-Trigger." "Bring out your dead" could become as popular a slogan as "Intel Inside," again some day if we would only apply conservatard principles!
.

Strange that the Party which has prided itself on screaming that government regulations are stifling business, especially, small business enterprises, don't want those firms to have the burden lifted of providing health insurance for their employees.

Why, yes, Rep. Kline, firms might indeed have more money to use for actual business needs. Might even help them to remain competitive. Sorta like "lifting red tape and regulations" from the backs of business, eh?

What a crock of shit. The bottom line is that private insurance companies have a monopoly, they are squeezing the consumer dry, and even if you have coverage you'll get dropped like a rotten egg should you get sick and make an expensive claim.

The public option is the only way to combat this, and ANY politician that is against the public option but is supposedly a free market capitalist is a lying son of a bitch.

Ask your congressperson, what is more important, the health of human beings or corporate profit?

The belief that a viable public option would actually work out too well for the public's interest should be enough to remove from office any politician that votes against it.

berttheclock,

That's a point about the public option that has not been discussed extensively by either side, and I would like to see it given more attention. The public option will make it more likely that employers will drop their contribution to health benefits, so the public option has the effect of a huge subsidy or tax cut for businesses. It seems to me that the Democrats should either try to prevent this outcome, or else try to take advantage of it as a sales pitch to win business support for the public option.

Usually, Republican House members are far better at using scare tactics.

Those are indeed the scare tactics. Nothing is more frightening to a Republican than the idea that any government program might actually work. The trouble with the GOP is they don't realize that any successes they've had in the past were based on obscuring what they were really afraid of (dark people, for example), not articulating it.

Chris,
I believe the public option will be designed so that not everyone will want it, meaning that it will be a minimal sort of basic coverage. Most of the middle class, for example, will probably prefer to stay with their private insurance.

Let's not forget that if business' are freed of the burden of providing health care for employees, if in fact that is what they CHOOSE to do (choose being the operative word here), that will free up a lot of money for investments, expansion, hiring, innovation.

Isn't that the core fundamental republican belief, that it is small business innovation that is the fuel of our economic engine?

Are PO proponents really making it clear enough that what's being reformed and "collectivized" is the insurance end, not the provider end? I already know that the critics aren't!

Progressives, we are not hearing what the Blue Dogs are saying, and we ignore them at our peril.

They are NOT saying that the public option will save money in the long run. They are saying that 1)the public option will be subsidized; 2) that the subsidy will create a price difference that will draw all the users over to the public plan; and 3) then the subsidy will grow dramatically because all the people have switched over; and 4) the public plan will become this incredibly expensive monster that will be manipulated politically, rather than via the market, and therefor make a huge, ineffective, expensive mess.

Read this again in that ilght: "And because it is cheaper, it's designed to save money, the government-run program has some very clear advantages, and the claims that it's gotta pay for itself that through the first three years of this there would be government subsidies."

Now refute items 1-4 from my scenario above. It can be done, but neither Steve nor any of you have done it.

It's hard to refute because, like a repug budget, it has neither numbers nor details. Without knowing what the charging mechanism will be for non-welfare cases, it's hard to know how it will play out, or how the "subsidy" will relate to anything else. If for example, the average non-welfare case will contribute a tax amount, calculated to match the equivalent total employer contribution for that pool of people, then 3 may not be true at all. And then projected admin cost savings will mean far from 4 being true, the plan will save money.

But then, we're talking about lawmakers here, so they are supposed to know the details - and if the details are that bad, why aren't the rest of the dems bitching about them?

I think it's pretty easy to refute:

1. Show how much you plan to charge for non-subsidized insurance.
2. Show your planned cost.
3. Show how much savings from admin cost reduction
4. Show how much savings from negotiated reimbursement rates and drug purchase prices
5. THEN Show how much cost from subsidizing the insurance for your target population
6. THEN Show how many additional people you cover because of the subsidy.

The point is to force the maximum of cost reduction and make it visible and then force the discussion to be about how many people you want to cover via the subsidy. There re many liberals who want to hide that last calculation so it doesn't get cut. I don't want it to get cut, but I want the greater transparency and greater cost savings, and am willing to have a very clear and open fight about the subsidy.