If the government plans were definitively not included — that is, say, the bill contained a provision that it was illegal for the government to provide health insurance directly — are you still opposed? I realize that this is theoretical; I'm just trying to see where else you sit, ignoring that particular issue.
If they came up with something that truely reduced costs, expanded availability and had no potential to limit my own choices and anyone else happy with what they had that would be great. Unfortunately, the true intent of this bill has been craftily veiled with health care reform to give government more control over our lives. As such, meaningful, effective legislation will not be forthcoming.
Also, on one hand, you say that the government is incapable of providing good resources: FEMA, Medicare, etc. On the other hand, you say that the government health plan will be so good that it will totally destroy any other private option. Those seem like opposing viewpoints to me. Can you explain?
I don't contend that it will be good, anything but, but the plan will take over using force via coercion and economic realities via employer-paid coverage passed on to the government plan.
Stu
Previous Topic
Index
