« Doesn't the Opt-Out Public Option Equal the Public Option? | tonnyb's Blog | Should the White House Punch Down? »
Olympia's Snow Job?
I was listening to Olympia Snowe on Morning Joke this morning and was stunned by her explanation of why she would not support a public option.
She presented four reasons:
1) the public option would create an unfair advantage against the insurance companies.
2) the public option, like all government programs, would cost more.
3) government run programs are less effective.
4) this would create another bloated government bureaucracy.
Items 1 & 2: A public option would create an unfair advantage and would cost more. Huh! Since the public option would have to pay for itself -- the money collected by the program would pay for the medical services provided -- I don't see how a public option that cost more than private insurance would create an unfair advantage? The price of the public option would be set by the cost of the services provided. Sounds like double talk to me. Am I missing something?
Insurance industry profits have increase 428% in the past 8 years or so. The public option could function without the need for profit. I think it would cost less. A lot less.
Item 3: Government run programs are less effective.
Here is a partial list of successful government programs.
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
National Park Service
Medicaid
Medicare
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
Social Security
Family & Medical Leave Act
National Weather Service
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Government Grants
Food & Drug Administration
Americans with Disabilities Act
Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI bill)
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (another GI bill)
Peace Corps
European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS or cash for clunkers)
Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act
Public Broadcasting
Public Schools & Universities
Public Transportation (it has a lot of faults but a lot of people need it to get around)
Public Libraries
Fire Department
Workers' Compensation (ex Sate Compensation Insurance Fund of California)
Rural Utilities Service
Community Development Block Grant
Housing & Urban Development (HUD)
Item 4: The public option would create another bloated government bureaucracy.
Who cares? Obviously some people do. But if the public option cost less and pays for itself than what difference does it make?
Her objections to the public option are just a regurgitation of the Republican/conservative memes against government.
If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.
She presented four reasons:
1) the public option would create an unfair advantage against the insurance companies.
2) the public option, like all government programs, would cost more.
3) government run programs are less effective.
4) this would create another bloated government bureaucracy.
Items 1 & 2: A public option would create an unfair advantage and would cost more. Huh! Since the public option would have to pay for itself -- the money collected by the program would pay for the medical services provided -- I don't see how a public option that cost more than private insurance would create an unfair advantage? The price of the public option would be set by the cost of the services provided. Sounds like double talk to me. Am I missing something?
Insurance industry profits have increase 428% in the past 8 years or so. The public option could function without the need for profit. I think it would cost less. A lot less.
Item 3: Government run programs are less effective.
Here is a partial list of successful government programs.
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
National Park Service
Medicaid
Medicare
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
Social Security
Family & Medical Leave Act
National Weather Service
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Government Grants
Food & Drug Administration
Americans with Disabilities Act
Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI bill)
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (another GI bill)
Peace Corps
European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS or cash for clunkers)
Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act
Public Broadcasting
Public Schools & Universities
Public Transportation (it has a lot of faults but a lot of people need it to get around)
Public Libraries
Fire Department
Workers' Compensation (ex Sate Compensation Insurance Fund of California)
Rural Utilities Service
Community Development Block Grant
Housing & Urban Development (HUD)
Item 4: The public option would create another bloated government bureaucracy.
Who cares? Obviously some people do. But if the public option cost less and pays for itself than what difference does it make?
Her objections to the public option are just a regurgitation of the Republican/conservative memes against government.
If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.
Advertisement
















Is it interesting to anyone that there appears to be this "one" entity, the insurance companies. I thought they were separate entities? But maybe not?
The big question is, why is anyone upset that the gov't would have an unfair advanatge against the insurance companies but not as upset about the unfair advantage they have against consumers?
October 14, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insurance companies are not bound by anti-trust laws. Them is appropriate. Sen. Shumer is trying to remove that exception.
October 14, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Them" as in "one" entity.
October 14, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink