Quote:
|
Would your personal concerns lie with the fact that you feel your tax money would be going to a government system that is less effective than you would like it to be? From what I understand, the HMOs already in place won't be tampered with so your quality of health care shouldn't change right?
|
Thats what the politicians say, but it's not the truth of the legislation, and certainly wouldn't be the end result. Example:
The current public option based plan was passed, companies would be fined if they didn't offer insurance to their employees. The problem is the fine ($8,000 I believe) would be far less per employee than they pay for their healthcare (average of $12,000+ per year I think. Mine is $9,000 a year). So why would any company keep offering insurance? Instead, they'll drop the private insurance (why not if the public option is there to meet the demand?) and pay the fine.
Quote:
|
The sad issue at this point is for people with no coverage, an average government health plan is better than no plan.
|
I understand that. But that still makes up 15% of the American people. I don't feel that universal coverage should come at the cost of quality of care. We're better than that and we can improve care, increase innovation and reduce costs while covering people who need it and want it.
The problem is the current arguments have little to do with healthcare, and are more based in ideology instead of pragmatic solutions.