Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
1. I do not think that fining someone to force them into a health care program is beneficial for the competition side of the equation especially if a private plan still exists. It COULD lead to out of control costs similar to what Medicare is dealing with right now.
2. I do not think that subsidizing private health care without trying to reduce costs FIRST is very smart.
3. I do still support a public option. In fact, I happen to think the two-tier system is the best kind of health care system in the world. But it HAS to be implemented under the right circumstances.
Clear enough? Or is there something else you and IFF want to nitpick at?
|
Well, since you're still asking.
1. You don't understand the purpose of the fine. At all. Your explanations have been ignorant at best at fear-mongering at worst.
2. I support Americans having access to health care, this bill makes health care accessible to more Americans. That is not the only issue but it is the most pressing one, and the nature of this bill (consumer protections against insurance companies plus some subsidies) does not infringe upon additional reforms.
I think protecting consumers in a toxic marketplace is much smarter than waiting for the market to correct itself.
3. Please provide an approximate date (in decades - I know you're not a senator) that uninsured Americans will have to wait before you will implement a public option under less-than-ideal circumstances.
Is that sufficiently not-nit-picky?