So, why not do BOTH a Public Option and allow insurance across state lines?

[cbdo2007]

Wouldn't that appease everyone AND make sure rates stayed low and regulations were in place?

Then everybody's happy.

[Captain Hilts]

1. It encourages competition. Can't have that!

[Edweird]

2. Because the insurance companies bought and paid for 'no public option'.

[cbdo2007]

3. But we're increasing their customer base so they can increase revenues....

if they can compete.

[Edweird]

4. They're getting increased customer base and profits through a government mandated

monopoly. They fart in the general direction of 'competition'.

[KamaAina]

5. Insurance across state lines would send health care down the credit card road

Usurious credit card interest rates became commonplace after a Supreme Court decision allowing banks to sell credit across state lines. South Dakota and then Delaware quickly changed their laws to favor the banks, which explains why your statements most likely come from one of those two states.

Just wait 'til your health insurance comes from "MegaHealthCorp of South Dakota, N.A." And be sure to read the fine print... :scared:

[cbdo2007]

7. That's when I would buy the Public Option....

in fact, everyone would which would put the insurance companies out of business.

Did you not see the OP?

[Oregone]

8. Not if it was engineered to not be competitive

As was being done. You say THE public option, as if its any real definable thing. It never was. As it was forming in detail, it kept getting smaller, and smaller, and more meaningless until it faded into oblivion. I think the Democrats just couldn't muster the will to keep what formed as the public option alive because it was, in all honesty, a worthless piece of shit.


But you took the carrot and here we are.

[cbdo2007]

10. Ok to clarify a GOOD Public Option....

Seriously, why the snarky feedback? Of course it would have to be competitive.

At this point we have nothing, so your blame of "but you took the carrot..." isn't helping anybody. Nobody is fawning over whatever your plan is either.

[Oregone]

11. Which means?

Sorry, hate to drive it home. The phrase has become an arbitrary talking point used as a rallying cry, buts its pretty worthless now after the bait-and-switch.

If they deliver one, itll be an instant victory, despite how worthless it is. Im merely trying to challenge people to use their heads in regards to this entire debate. Few have taken notice.

And there are plenty that fawn over what I have been advocating (single-payer). But they aren't the ones who have been placed in power and bought off.

[shintao]

14. Hmm, Across State lines is bad? Why?

I don't understand the threat of insurance across state lines? It would seem if the corporation was bigger, the rates would be lower? Can I see a logical explanation please, from the Liberal point of view? Thank you.

[KamaAina]

15. One or more states would be sure to enact lax regulations

in hopes of attracting insurers, much as SD and DE did with credit cards.

[shintao]

16. Just thinking

I see what your are saying. We basically have that in "other" Nationwide insurance companies now, (home owner, car, disability pensions). But that is the reasoning, and I do appreciate your answer.

[proudohioan]

6. Because that makes too much sense. n/t

[Vinca]

9. Because the felonious insurance companies would inhabit

whichever state allows them to screw the American people over the most. Just like Delaware and South Dakota and the credit card companies.

[asdjrocky]

12. We are only allowed what the corporate overlords will allow.

End of discussion.

[veganpuffs]

13. Wouldn't less regulations result in further monopoly?

That's what would happen if insurance companies could compete across state lines.