"[O]ur fear is that if you actually get in there looking at the legislation that it's set up in a way that employers would increasingly opt to letting their employees move over to the public, to the public option. And because it is cheaper, it's designed to save money, which the government-run program has some very clear advantages, and the claims that it's gotta pay for itself that through the first three years"
Now what would be bad about a health care program, that was cheaper and designed to save money? I doubt you would find many among the general public that would object to less expensive health care. So I wonder who Mr. Kline is speaking for when he objects to a less expensive health care plan? I wonder which organizations are contributing to the Congressman's re-election fund? Think you might find a few insurance and pharmaceutical companies among them?
Rep. Kline, in the same quote, reveals another reason he fears a public option. The realization that companies will push their employees toward a government run plan and move away from providing private insurance for their employees. Which they should. Tying health care to employment is an idea whose time should never have come in the first place. If including a public option is a first step to removing the health care burden from employers, and introducing an equitable government run plan for all that is another step in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment