I agree with you Conner. I believe that a public option would not ultimately be the best solution. Aside from the fact that its unsettling to me to have the government involved in my personal health*, I feel like we don't have the money right now to initiate such a program.
The main agruement behind the public option is that it would drive down costs because of competition. States hold a virtual monopoly on healthcare, and currently you cannot insure people across state lines, but what if we changed that? If we had national competition for healthcare wouldn't that drive down the costs too? If we simply allowed insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines like they do auto insurance, we could drive down costs and insure low income Americans without involving the government. Conservatives are happy because of more capitialism and less government, and liberals should be happy because we provide the public with low cost healthcare.
*I realize it is an option I don't have to choose, but it has the potential to drive private insurers out of business and then I could be forced to take on a government option.
The main agruement behind the public option is that it would drive down costs because of competition. States hold a virtual monopoly on healthcare, and currently you cannot insure people across state lines, but what if we changed that? If we had national competition for healthcare wouldn't that drive down the costs too? If we simply allowed insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines like they do auto insurance, we could drive down costs and insure low income Americans without involving the government. Conservatives are happy because of more capitialism and less government, and liberals should be happy because we provide the public with low cost healthcare.
*I realize it is an option I don't have to choose, but it has the potential to drive private insurers out of business and then I could be forced to take on a government option.
Chelsea wrote and intriguing post on a favorite song of hers, and in that post she discusses the importance of cliches.
Great post Chel! I agree, I think that as corny as cliches are, they hold some meaning. Before they were thrown in the washing machine we like to call "society" they held value. At some point they were someone's clever joke. Over time, their reputations tarnish, and they become the punch lines of bad sitcoms, but most of them are true life lessons. For example, "money doesn't grow on trees". A classic cliche but it gets at the importance of understanding the value of money. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," tells us that healthy habits keep us out of the doctors.
Although many people associate cliches with stupidity, I enjoy them. The have a sense of nostalgic value. How else do you teach children basic life lessons without ruining their innocence?
Although many people associate cliches with stupidity, I enjoy them. The have a sense of nostalgic value. How else do you teach children basic life lessons without ruining their innocence?
No comments:
Post a Comment