Public schools are education's version of the "public option". In the health care debate we supposedly need the public option to provide competition to the private sector. The result is millions of parents that will do just about use any option to get their kids out of public schools. So what's the socialists' answer? Fix the schools? Nope. Cut off the options. Force them into the public system.
This is the plan for the health system too. Bring in a public option, then cut off the oxygen to any private alternatives.
Ditto
2 comments:
Allegations of price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive sales contracts, local price cutting to freeze out competitors, and the dividing up of markets need to be fully explored through subpoenas and depositions (a law suit by all 50 States and joined by the Feds) so we can get rid of our dysfunctional corporate health care system that's choking the economy to death.
Federal workers and retirees can select plans at a cost range from $100 dollars a month for the cheapest individual coverage to $500 dollars for the most expensive family plan.
I’m voting “MY” pocket book - I want lower premiums and less money taken out of my paycheck - if they want to help spur on the economy they will make sure this happens for all - not just a select group.
90% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the population is no way to run a country but a heck of a way to establish a royalty ruling class. Yacht sales can not sustain 350 million people. I'm for the public option, competition and a level playing field or break up the big insurers like we did AT&T.
A slavish focus on profit margin might be good for the individual or a business, but it is one helluva lousy way to "govern" a Country. The GOP being a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America has a hard time with that concept.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
Paul you make a great case AGAINST the public option. Bid rigging, price fixing, etc. are symptoms of monopolies or cartels. A public option would only exaserbate existing problems in this area.
One does not need to look further than your own flawed attempt at drawing parallels to the AT&T breakup. You may be to young to remember the old AT&T, but back before 1984 they WERE the public option. If you wanted to call grandma in pasedena you HAD to use AT&T,and you had to pay THE price they charged which in today's dollars was about $1.00/minute. The government set phone rates and AT&T was guaranteed a hefty profit. AT&T and its lawyers would squash any upstart competiition like MCI.
The breakup was far more analogous to ELIMINATION of the "public option". What has result? Well, for starters consumers have many, many, many more options. My provider gives me free long distance. AT&T makes very little profit which you would think would warm every liberal's heart. Truth be told the AT&T breakup is exactly the model we conservatives would like to see for health care. This is why we are against what congress is shoving though.
This health care bill is trying to do the exact opposite of the AT&T breakup. It's taking a system that admittedly needs more competition and making it more monopolistic.
Post a Comment