A liberal explains why we don't need a "Public Option"

[urbanverificationist]

If we mandate the purchase of health insurance and subsidize that purchase, are not we subsidizing the expansion of health insurance company profits? Where are the cost controls?

A true public option would provide 30% savings immediately which would then cover the people who presently have no health care.

[lj4adotcomdan]

The mandate in HR3200 is the purchase of health insurance via the exchange if you don't otherwise have heathcare. One need not purchase the public option. One can purchase a Qualified Health Benefit Plan sold by a private company via the exchange.

The pooling effect that takes place via the exchange will bring prices down (since the larger the pool, the wider you spread your risk).

What do you consider to be a "true public option"?

[urbanverificationist]

A true public option is one that competes on an even playing field with private options. Any one and any company should be able to buy in. A public option should have lower administration costs.

Many people actually do care about the economics and sustainability of the health care system.

Economies of scale should bring down costs assuming the lower rates are passed on to consumers.

[BellaBKNY]

Thanks for posting this.. I feel like Obama shouldnt back down..

[lj4adotcomdan]

He absolutely shouldn't back down. However, what I fear is too many people fighting for a specific vehicle to get people to universal coverage instead of fighting for universal coverage in general.

And there has been some confusion on my facebook page about what I mean so I may have to do a follow up to this just to clarify a few points.