The Health Care Debate is NOT over yet.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aBg_98uzqkyo

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health care.

“What’s important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said today on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The public option itself “is not the essential element.”

Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with government funds.

The co-op option does seem to be the most likely alternative. Why would the co-ops need to be started with Federal Government funds? Traditionally co-ops have been created at the state level. Why would the Federal Government even be involved in something that can be done on the state level?

Opponents at the meetings “are not really representative of America,” Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “We have to be careful here not to let those town meetings make the scene that influences what we do on health policy,” he said.

Of course all of these concerned citizens are paid to be there, right? I haven't received my check yet! Arlen Specter is a disgrace.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today on CBS’s “Face The Nation” that the danger of not acting outweighs any downside of Democrats’ proposals.

“What happens if we do nothing? That’s the riskiest option of all,” Gibbs said. “Your premium will double in less than nine years if we do nothing,” and tens of millions of Americans will lose their coverage altogether, he said.

Gibbs said that Obama believes “the option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition.” Still, he added, if an alternative plan offers consumers choice and competition to health insurance industry plans, “If we have that, the president will be satisfied.”

O.k. two key things here. First, Gibbs states that there are downsides to the "Democrats' proposals". After all of the fighting and making as if anyone who finds fault with the bill must be crazy (or paid) -- the White House press secretary admits to downsides in the legislation!

Second, Gibbs says, "Obama believes “the option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition.” However, Obama will be satisfied if there is an alternative that offers, "choice and competition". This implies that there must be government involvement to boost competition. The opposite is true. The government is, 9 times out of 10, the reason for limited competition. Competition is often government regulated to provide a... what was it, "level playing field". Deregulation of the insurance industry would lead to more competition.

The Thomas.gov website is down so I can't look through the legislation. When I can I will give specifics on options contained within the bill.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.