Personal tools

Argument: Healthcare reform/regulation can succeed without public option

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Stuart Butler. "The Case Against: The public plan will unfairly crowd out private coverage". Heritage Foundation. July 28, 2009: "One argument is that a government-sponsored plan is needed so that Americans with modest income and chronic medical problems -- the kind of people who are literally uninsurable -- can be assured of getting coverage. [...] But this overlooks everything else that has already been agreed. There's bipartisan support for subsidies and health exchanges to assure portable, affordable coverage. Even the health insurance industry would accept revamped regulation to limit premium variation so that sicker people can get coverage. And we've made great progress in recent years with reinsurance and risk adjustment mechanisms to handle high-risk people. [...] A public plan does nothing to advance on this. It is anathema to many of the very people who are in agreement and just throws a monkey wrench into the discussion."

Steven Pearlstein, The Washington Post's Pulitzer-Prize winning economics columnist: "(T)here's no particular evidence that a government-run insurance plan will be any more successful than what we currently get from big private insurers."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits