Comments on: Congress’s Track Record at Creating Insurance Not Good

By: Walter

Walter — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:34:36 +0000

A public option is necessary because it makes a certain number of people dependent on the government and promises to pull more people in as time goes on. The “social need” is the need of politicians to stay in power.

By: mike connolly

mike connolly — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:29:08 +0000

The conclusion offered in this post is terribly misleading. In 2006 the first year of the Part D implementation only 10% of the offered plans fit the definition of a standard plan(Source: Kaiser Foundation). This is still true today. The remaining 90% were classified as “actuarially equivalent” plans, which is a smoke & mirrors method of making a complex plan created by the pharmaceutical industry even more obscure and difficult to understand.
Please remember that the pharmaceutical industry was the lobbying group that crafted this confusing piece of legislation.

By: Bart

Bart — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:54:59 +0000

I guess what bugs me the most is the lack of a logical train of thought leading toward such extreme measures as a public option. One could probably make any system work if it were necessary to have such a system, but why is this one necessary? What social need requires a public plan as a solution?

By: Ron Greiner

Ron Greiner — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:12:14 +0000

With or without a public plan these health care reforms will make the burden of taxes and premiums skyrocket.

When MSAs were signed into law in just 8 weeks we had produced the first enrollment. The government could never be so lightning fast.

Everybody can keep their choice of plans except Obama has the crosshairs on low cost medically underwritten portable health insurance. So sign up quick before your best option is no longer available.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:34:08 +0000

More people ought to know about the success of competition in the Part D program.

By: Tom H.

Tom H. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:56:13 +0000

Devon, good point.