Personal tools

Argument: Co-ops need government involvement, but then why not public plan?

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow specializing in healthcare at the libertarian Cato Institute: "There’s no reason to do a co-op or any other option if it’s not somehow managed by government. We have 1,300 insurance companies, and now we’d just have 1,350." Michael was actually arguing against a co-ops, but this argument cuts both ways. If co-ops are considered as an alternative to a government-run public option, and yet they would require government-involvement to be effective, why not just go with the public option, which is more likely to work effectively at insuring 47 million uninsured.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits