Nate Silver makes George Will clear:
Will's argument is apparently this: The government does not need to make a profit and will have greater leverage with providers; therefore it will deliver the same service for less money. That's unfair!
Is this really the best argument that one of the most prominent intellectual conservatives can mount against the public option?
Post is a bit longish for tweetish attention spans -- but a great exposure of the real objection to public plans (Congressional conflicts of interest notwithstanding), and of why no real competition exists in the insurance industry at present anyway.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I can't claim to be 'objective' or neutral on health-care reform -- but who can? Everybody needs health care, some more than others. I need it less than most, as my family and I are, knock on wood, generally blessed with good health. Even so, we laid out $18K last year for health care, still owe…
Actually, Journalists do take some of the blame for the death of newspapers:
But why is the business model dying?
Competition is a factor, and blogs are obviously part of that mix. But again, if I'd started a business and someone else opened up down the street and offered a more appealing product,…
A policy brief about Congressional Republicans’ bill to replace the Affordable Care Act has two Medicaid provisions that could prove seriously detrimental to public health and states’ finances: Gutting the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, and changing the current Medicaid financing structure. A Center on…
Yes, I know, the two are not mutually exclusive, but I still think it's a good title. The latest bit of evil idiocy? More fanning of fears about health care reform. Don't misunderstand, there's plenty of potential pitfalls to health care reform, but Rush is an idiot. He calls it "Five Freedoms…