Users who Dugg This
Chathura Adiakri
0 Followers
Herbs Therapy
1 Followers
kosasih1171
0 Followers
Mary Jay Dee
1072 Followers
Custompeptide
21 Followers
Emily jones
97 Followers
Ravi Tiwari
55 Followers
agentsalesleads
4 Followers
neuromancerzSep 23, 2009
@beefjerkey2: I don't know why people are digging you down. You hit the nail on the head. The issue is with the exploding costs.
palehorse864Sep 23, 2009
Heh, you're right.
bobcat7407Sep 23, 2009
@stormFirst off, that's a pretty extreme scenario that is playing off emotion. For profit is what has driven our country to be the greatest country on earth. Interference by the government is what has caused the health care market to be in the situation it is in. If the free market were actually allowed to operate, competition would drive prices down. As bizzywho said. Competition is the key, because competition allows people the choice of what they want to do with their money. The government only uses force. If for profit is so bad, should our entire food industry be taken over by the government? Everything (farmers, grocers, restaurants) is for profit and it is a need like health care. So what is the difference that makes it work so well? Oh yeah, minimal government interference that doesn't stifle competition...
jonnyboy1544Sep 24, 2009
No thanks. I'm not a birther and I don't watch Glenn Beck. I just don't like Obama's ideas on governance.
boulderbumSep 25, 2009
I hear you bobcat. It may interest you to know that such a provision would at least be constitutional, however.The constitution explicitly grants the right to collect tax revenue and spend it on programs "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;":<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_C ...</a>Its interpretation has been upheld by the supreme court to the point where financing programs like the construction and maintenance of a national highway system was never in any question as far as constitutionality.I doubt even republicans in congress will raise doubt over the true constitutionality of a public option for healthcare, because despite claims to the contrary in email forwards, the position doesn't hold much ground legally.
clvngodessSep 26, 2009
For those who forgot what the word "option" actually means:op⋅tion /ˈɒpʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [op-shuhn] Show IPA Use option in a SentenceSee web results for optionSee images of option–noun 1. the power or right of choosing. 2. something that may be or is chosen; choice. 3. the act of choosing. 4. an item of equipment or a feature that may be chosen as an addition to or replacement for standard equipment and features: a car with a long list of extra-cost options; a telephoto lens option for a camera. 5. stock option. 6. a privilege acquired, as by the payment of a premium or consideration, of demanding, within a specified time, the carrying out of a transaction upon stipulated terms; the right, as granted in a contract or by an initial payment, of acquiring something in the future: We bought one lot and took a 90-day option on an adjoining one. 7. Football. a play in which a back has a choice of either passing or running with the ball. –verb (used with object) 8. to acquire or grant an option on: The studio has optioned his latest novel for film adaptation. 9. to provide with optional equipment: The car can be fully optioned at additional cost.
leezusSep 28, 2009
As health insurance companies work now, the idea is that profits are maximized through people paying in more than they are taking out. So with every extra person, that gap between what is paid out and what is paid in increases, while what the individuals pay stays the same. Now, with the government running it, and the goal of profit taken out, that means that with every extra person on the plan, the cost on the individual can actually become cheaper. So, with a plan that encompasses the most possible people, as I imagine a public option would, it is theoretically the cheapest possible way to insure large numbers of people.Of course, this means balancing what is paid out and what is paid in. And well, we all know how well our federal government does with balancing budgets. Still though, while simple, I think my reasoning is pretty sound.