What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.
That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.
The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.
Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable.
Question: ONLY 2%? Is this what you want?
Asked by Anonymous at 5:45 PM on Nov. 1, 2009 in Politics & Current Events
So, if over a trillion is only going to do something for 2%, what the heck would happen if employers took the penalty and dumped their employees into the 'option'? How much more would that end up costing? I am sure that part of the bill has changed, right? Is it possible that this bill is even worse than the first one? This just goes to show that the more DC screws with something the worse it gets.
Answer by QuinnMae at 7:14 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Answer by mancosmomma at 5:54 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Answer by PsWifey at 5:54 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
I am sure I am missing something. I thought the last I heard is that this reform was going to cost in the neighborhood of $900 billion dollars. Is that what it is going to cost to provide benefits to 2%? Please tell me I am missing something (I have been out of the loop for a few days).
Answer by QuinnMae at 5:58 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 5:59 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Answer by itsmesteph11 at 6:14 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
It is the "can't figure out what is in the bill" that worries me. I don't have time to read a bill that is just shy of 2,000 pages. It's the hidden nuances and vaguely worded rules and procedures. The government can't tell that we, as citizens, are bound by law to purchase a product or service. It is unconstitutional. I heard the argument that car insurance is required. Well, not exactly. You don't have to drive. If you want to drive, you have to follow the law. If I want to live, I have to have the UHC? It's not like I can choose not to get sick, or need to go to the dentist. Politicians need to stop trying to take care of us like we don't have enough sense to take care of ourselves.
Answer by jesse123456 at 6:17 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Answer by Carpy at 6:32 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Answer by LoriKeet at 7:37 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Answer by mancosmomma at 8:25 PM on Nov. 1, 2009
Next question overall
(Just for Fun)
Trying to make twice baked potatoes, but I forget how to bake them lol Help?
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups: