Wish we could delete messages like this where we make an idiot of our-
selves. I figured out how to edit the title after posting the words below.
Please disregard this entire message. argh.


Hmm.. my title was truncated somehow. It should say,
Senate FinCom Approves a bad "Public Health Option" for States.

Perhaps the QUOTE symbols shouldn't be used in Titles here at ATS.
Oh well, we live and learn!

[edit on 1-10-2009 by carewemust]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by carewemust]

I've always said I would fully support a statewide option. I think the problems with the funding is that it is under utilized by residents and so they wind up covering only low income people who usually have pre-existing conditions.

I really wish I can remember what state it was but I was just listening to NPR the about two weeks ago and they had the same problem. They were going broke. The had at least one guy who had 1 million dollar a year condition (blood disease or something) and everyone else that they were covering were sick before they even got coverage.

I'll try to find more info on it but the program made a complete 180 by making certain changes (what they were I can't remember for the life of me) and more and more people started getting the state insurance instead. People making more money (and could therefore pay a larger portion of their premium) and who were healthier. The insurance companies in the state were getting peeved because their prices were so low that they complained that their prices were "unfair" and they weren't able to compete with them (waa, waa, waa, cry me a river).

Anyway, I personally think that a state by state option is much more viable.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by nunya13]

The trouble with state-run public options is that there would be extreme variations from state to state. The richer states would be able to provide more and better coverage.

In my state, for example, only children and the disabled are eligible for medicaid. No other adult can receive it no matter how low their income is. And it looks like the state may be running out of money even for that. In other states this is not the case.

IMO Social Security and Medicare work fine on the federal level. A national public option would be the most efficient and cost-effective way to go.

I'm glad to see the Senate Finance Committee even considering a public option, but giving it to the states is just ideologically popular. It's not really in the best interests of the country as a whole.