*"But the "public option" was removed at Republican insistence. Which in principle I have no issue with, but yet again the Republicans annoyed the living hell out of me with the contradictory arguments they used. First they argued that government is inherently inefficient and that thus any public healthcare plan would be expensive while providing poor service, thus wasting taxpayer money, etc. But at the same time they argued that a public option would compete with private insurance companies too much and drive them out of business.
So which is it? Would a public option be competitive or not? You can't argue BOTH.
Petulant jackasses. :)"
Actually these arguments dovetail quite well. It's very possible, likely even, for a government entity to be inefficient, expensive, of poor quality and wasteful. A government entity can also run deficits covered by taxpayer subsidy indefinitely, making it very hard for the private sector to compete.
What am I missing?
*The "Public Option' was not removed from the ACA negotiations at the insistence of the Republicans. The "Public Option" was removed to secure the votes of Democrat senators. They didn't need anything from the Republicans and didn't seek any input from the Republicans. Also recall that ObamaCare was never voted on by the House. Unprecedented. Imagine the howls in the media if a Republican majority ever tried that trick!
*Also, for the record, we have health care tied to employment (which is a lousy system) thanks to wage controls instituted by a previous Democratic administration. So, thanks for that.
*Jennifer - Not sure if I'm reading your post correctly but is it your opinion that a person should ensure he/she has earned enough to avoid receiving an ObamaCare subsidy prior to embarking on the PCT or would you be willing for that person to accept a taxpayer subsidy?
*BTW - What we're taking about is not insurance. It's income redistribution to pay medical expenses. I suppose "income redistribution" is a loaded phrase that makes the Left very defensive but I can't think of a better term.
*Speaking of income redistribution ObamaCare smacks young well people to pay for sick elderly people. It will be interesting to see if the youngsters figure that out.
*I know of a company that paid for ALL the healthcare needs of their employees and their families without any deductions or copays. Obama derisively refers to this type of healthcare coverage as a "Cadillac" plan. A punitive tax on this type of plan was included in ObamaCare. Therefore the company was forced to reduce benefits enough to fall under the "Cadillac" threshold which resulted in copays and payroll withholdings for the employees. Probably doesn't hurt management much but I imagine it was quite a hit for line workers. Not a myth and not anecdotal.
*I don't understand the line of thinking whereby we take 20% of the economy that affects every single person living here and decide to play around with it to see what happens. That's dumb. Wouldn't it have been better to work around the edges and slowly improve the old system?
*It's easy to imagine that Dem leadership doesn't care if ObamaCare tanks because the next stop on the line is Single-Payer. They've said as much.
*The problem with Medicare-for-all is Medicare is heavily subsidized by private care. If everyone had Medicare who would subsidize that?