GOP Representatives oppose public option because it's "cheaper", "saves money"

[Marokai Backbeat]

We certainly wouldn't want to spend less and help poor people get cheap access to healthcare. What are those crazy liberals thinking?

[Marokai Backbeat]

If a person is sick, they deserve the best treatment possible.  Money should not be a factor.  If you believe it should be then you're just as despicable as the people who locked the lower class passengers of the Titanic below deck so the wealthy could board the lifeboats first.

Amen.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

     So there's no issue with it being non-subsidized, seeing as how it will succeed on the free market by virtue of being inherently cheaper?

Could you explain a bit more, please?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not quite in the mood to have a health care debate in two or three threads at the same time, so if you want my more lengthy rantings on this issue, check out the Atlasia Government board, my point is simply that I favor a public health care program because It's cheaper than private care, cuts costs, and can (and has in other countries) provided low-cost, quality health care for all the citizens who are in need of it.

If you want to have a debate over all of the above obvious statements, and not over irrelevant statements and how to get private care just for the sake of it, we can, but I've been repeating myself in Atlasia lately, and I'm not in the mood to do it elsewhere as well.