Posted on 07/06/2009 9:41:04 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Sen. Olympia Snowe, a key figure in shaping federal health care legislation, said Monday that a government-run plan that would take effect if the private insurance market fails to deliver affordable coverage could bridge the partisan divide that threatens to derail President Barack Obama's efforts to reform the system.
Snowe, R-Maine, said she's working with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to establish that kind of a framework in the bill expected to emerge next month from the Senate Finance Committee.
In an Associated Press interview in Portland, Snowe said it would be unfair to include a government-run health insurance option that would take effect immediately.
"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," she said.
Responding to Snowe's comments, Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said the Democrat will continue to seek a consensus with Republicans but believes there must be a public option that "is available to all Americans from the first day."
Snowe is seen as a key swing vote on health care. She was the committee's only Republican who declined to go on record as opposing the public option.
Snowe said having a government option as a backup would be an approach "that bridges both sides" and gives private insurers a fair chance to meet the requirements of the new law.
"I don't think we can entirely depend on the private insurance market to deliver. They haven't delivered thus far, and that's why we're in the predicament we're in today," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
-
The old frog in the kettle trick. Turn the heat up slowly. Before Americans know it, they're cooked.
Leave it to the AP had to interview one of the RINO’s to make it look like a “bi-partisan” bill when all it is is a box of cobras waiting to be opened.
To be the devil’s advocate, can someone answer what the problem would be with a public option system vs. the private sector insurers? If the government is typically unable to outperform the private sector, what do we have to fear in a public option? Isn’t the private sector always able to do things better and more efficiently? Or is this no longer the case?
So long as they keep private insurance available, I’m cool with a public option for reasons of competition but they damn well better regulate private insurance to where the pre-existing condition exclusions are outlawed.
The government will take our tax money and subsidize the public “option” driving prices below the point they’re profitable for any private company. The public “option” will then be the only option, a.k.a. single-payer health care.
Calling her a RINO isn’t fair to RINOs, she’s a dedicated socialist/communist!
Sounds like the Reagan-era amnesty for illegals, which promised tough border controls "later".
Obama: I want your life
Snow: How about we settle for an arm and a leg
The Gov't can't outperform in the car industry either, but GM has been forced to go that way.
Lousy cars will be the result, with bureaucracy clogging the efficiency that otherwise would be there.
Canada has had public healthcare for decades and their system is awful. But the public has been brainwashed into thinking the gov't is doing a better job than the private sector would do. It's a lie.
Here's an amendment for you, Olympia ...
Congess may NOT exempt itself from any portion of the bill, and may NOT have "special" clinics or Drs not available to (and not widely known to) the general public...
And, NO CONGRESSPERSON may be advanced in line or receive preferential treatment of any kind.
.
I say we give folks the option on their tax returns - like Massachusetts does - to pay extra tax if you want. They can create a checkbox that will allow all Americans to fund healthcare if they so desire.
And I can bet you not a single Democrat would check that box - like Massachusetts.
Oh look, see we can all be happy and hold hands. GAH!
The problem is that somewhere around 75% of the people who would be covered under the proposed legislation are illegal aliens.
This proposal is about getting votes for dem-fascists. Nothing more. Hand out the pork to the favored, and serve up nail soup and rationed health care to retirees and injured/disabled.
You watch. Words like ‘racial justice’ and ‘streamlining’ and ‘inclusive’ and ‘for all Americans’ are going to be used in discussions—or whatever words the dem-fasicsts dream up on the daily call.
To your question:
“what the problem would be with a public option system vs. the private sector insurers?”
Control and amalgamation of data is the real end goal. Followed by control of services available and rendered (based on insurance and actuarial risk calculations fed into a profit algorithm of costs for benefits versus savings if benefits are denied or curtailed severely) according to the individual patient’s condition/prognosis/disability.
Hitherto, US citizens and those who come here have been able to obtain care pretty much on demand, especially at for pay services,.e.g, face lifts or weight loss surgeries or dialysis. These are by some measures completely optional. Who will decide whether such procedures are required or optional? Should someone get a complete workup and an MRI & some kind of gene profile? Would the government pay for such a thing? WHo would decide that, a clerk, a party operative, a congressperson, a bureaucrat? Would a decision for your health care that impacts your lifespan rest in the hands of someone with a political interest in your party? How would your case history and medical records combine over time to your benefit—but not the centralized control of the government?
The whole thing stinks.
Much like single childless taxpayers pay for the college education of other people's children.
Etc.
rino john mccain loves doing bipartisanship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.