What is the rationale given by the Democrats that are against the public option?

[kentuck]

They don't think it will work?

They think it is too much government intervention?

They think it will cost too much?

They think it is socialism?

Just what do these Democrats have against the "public option"? Are they for the "public"? Would the "public option" benefit the "public"? Sounds like someone is being dishonest?

What other reasons do they give?

[mdmc]

1. The current set up works great for corporations

why shake things up?

[Lost-in-FL]

2. It's hard work. nt

[kentuck]

3. Could be?

I hadn't thought of that one..

[Caliman73]

4. I think mostly, Democrats who are against healthcare reform are using the same arguments.

The costs and the government interfering in free enterprise. Of course those arguments are just as baseless when a Democrat states them as when a Republican. The greater problem is as you point out, Republicans are expected to be against it as it interferes with big business making a profit. Democrats are supposed to be for the middle class' interests and protection of the poor. They are being dishonest and the Democrats voting against it have typically received monetary support from the health care industry for their elections.

[emulatorloo]

5. too much money (it isn't), won't reduce the deficit/ control costs (it will), is govt run healthcare

(which they ellide with single payer which of course the public option is not)

At least that is what Liebermann is saying. I know he is not a democrat though, but that seems to be the playbook they are reading from.

[Romulox]

6. It will upset the Republicans who won't be voting for the bill anyhow (or something.) nt

[sabrina 1]

7. The public rationale is that they 'cant' get the votes' or whatever

The truth can be found when you look at who funds their campaigns.

[yurbud]

9. ''can't get the votes'' means can't get that corrupt pol's vote(ie Lieberman, Boughtout Baucus, etc)

[kctim]

8. Here's a few

1. Govt interfering in personal lives.
2. Will lead to single-payer.
3. Will cost a ton which will lead to regular tax increases.
4. Is not a true option.
5. Most Americans are satisfied with what they have now and reforming that to control costs is desired more than changing the entire system.

[BeHereNow]

10. And all the points you list are examples of just how STUPID Americans are.

Any one who buys that rhetoric has absolutely ZERO critical thinking skills
because all can be SOUNDLY defeated.

1. Govt interfering in personal lives.

THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY INTERFERING IN THEIR LIVES.
SPENDING BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS ON MILITARY ESCAPADES
AROUND THE WORLD, REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC OPINION OR NEED AT HOME.
THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERED WITH LIVES PLENTY WHEN
IT GAVE 800 BILLION DOLLARS TO THE BANKSTERS.

2. Will lead to single-payer.

YOU MEAN ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL?
LIKE OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES?

3. Will cost a ton which will lead to regular tax increases.

AND THE WARS AROUND THE PLANET DON'T?

4. Is not a true option.

MOST AMERICANS WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THE OPTION TO ACCESS
HEALTH CARE WITH OUT GOING BANKRUPT.

5. Most Americans are satisfied with what they have now and reforming that to control costs is desired more than changing the entire system.

UNTIL THEY TRY TO GET THEIR EXISTING INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH MAKES
PROFITs BY DENYING CLAIMS AND CARE TO PAY FOR LIFE SAVING TREATMENT.

I sincerely hope you don't defend or buy into their asinine assertions.

BHN

[kctim]

11. It is absurd to shout "stupid"

based solely on your opinions.

Few people disagree with you about sending our troops overseas and in case you did not notice, not a whole lot of people were happy about the bailouts. But to try and say those things are the same thing as telling people they must pay for and use a govt program, is ridiculous.

No, I do not mean "access" to healthcare for all. We already have that and EVERY American is able to access it if they wish. Now, paying for that access for some, as in a safety net, would probably not be as unsupported as single payer is.

Yes, wars cost money, but the comparison is apples to oranges.

The majority of Americans already have the option to purchase health insurance and almost every American has access to healthcare one way or another. Again, for those who cannot, safety net of some sort.

Most Americans do not face such difficulty and are satisfied with their current plans. To take one case out of a thousand and say it is the standard, is dishonest.

You have "soundly defeated" nothing other than what you brought up yourself.

[BeHereNow]

16. I wasn't shouting... I was distinguishing my comments on each of your points.

And for the record- there is NO safety net for
people like my kid.

I'm not going into details about her situation-
but trust me, there is NO safety net for her-
not one that she can navigate.

Apples and oranges?

Is war necessary?
I think not.
The money would be far better spent on the PEOPLE
in this country.

How are the government run programs in other countries
not working?
Why are we forced to spend our tax dollars on these fucking wars
when the money could be used to run a government based program
based on a model that works in countries that don't spend billions
of dollars every month on military hegemonic global domination
that only destroys other people and profits very few who wage those wars?

I think you should examine you priorities as to how
your tax dollars are being used.
And I sincerely hope you never find yourself or a family member
in the predicament my adult child is in.
If so, I hope you have a lot of cash on hand to make sure
your loved one gets the medical needed.

BHN

[kctim]

22. My bad

and I apologize. The caps thing threw me off.

I realize there is no healthcare safety net right now, well, not one that is effecient and that works. That is why I say we need one and that I do not believe many people would object to that as they now do with a single payer type plan.

Yes, apples to oranges.
Nobody likes war, but it is a reality and that makes it necessary. Providing for armies is also in the Constitution.
Yes, it would be better if more money was spent on the people rather than on defense. But there are two main different mindsets concerning tax dollars and what they should, and are allowed, to be used for.

I do not believe I knocked govt run programs in other countries, but rather I said that our Constitution prevents us from doing some of the things they do and that we should legally change it IF we desire to operate as other countries do. No more gray areas and the problem is solved.

Again, I agree that our tax dollars could be more wisely used than on these current wars. I also believe in a healthcare safety net type plan for those who need help. I just don't believe people should be forced into a govt run plan against their will, especially when so many question if its Constitutional or not and that it won't be as great as the dreamers believe.

[jtrockville]

12. Didn't Landrieu come right out and say

it wouldn't be good for the insurance industry?

[tk2kewl]

13. I will lose massive amounts of campaign contributions. n/t

[samrock]

19. BINGO!!!

We have a winner

[Bobbie Jo]

20. *Ding*Ding*Ding*

...and there you have it. :think:

[spanone]

14. they took too much money from big pharma/insurance companies

[AllyCat]

15. The only legitimate and unspoken reason is that they would make their largest

campaign contributers angry. So they come up with just about every excuse in the book because, of course, they don't want to come out and SAY that.

[Cerridwen]

17. "Government can't do anything right" but "government will kill the

insurance industry in a 'fair market' fight."

I dare you to make sense of that.

[sendero]

18. Rationale?

They don't need no stinking rationale. They are going to do what their moneyed interests tell them, period.

Rationales are for people that matter, the proletariat no longer does.

[liberal_at_heart]

21. flame bait