Co-blogger Mike was eerily prescient last summer when he wrote about the Public Option as it relates to Medicare Advantage plans:
"Medicare has not chosen to respond to its Medicare Advantage competition by improving its own product. Instead, Medicare chose to respond to its competition by using its power to kill its competitor, rather than compete with it. That illustrates pretty well how governments tend to "compete" and we all need to keep this in mind when the "public option" idea again surfaces."
Indeed.
But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Well, as Our Betters in DC© continue to "streamline" ObamaTax alternatives, they've (perhaps unwittingly) turned the spotlight once again to the Public Option, which for so long has been presumed dead.
So, what's the "Public Option," you may ask?
Well:
"The "Public Option" is a euphemism for Single Payer, the obvious end-game for the ObamaTax from the get-go.
That is, the government sets up its own health insuranceracket scheme to "compete" with the private sector. Of course, the private sector is made up of commercial carriers that are enjoined from collaborating in a way that the government is not. The government, of course, has the lawful power of force, which it can use to ensure an unfair and insurmountable market advantage. Thus, the end of the private insurance business.
So, why bring this up now? The Public Option is dead, right?
Maybe so, maybe not:
"The BHP [Basic Health Program] system could appeal to states that would have liked to see Congress offer a government-run, "public option" health insurance throughout the country, in addition to or in place of the PPACA exchange system"
In fact, the power of the government's purse is so strong, there's no "maybe" about it. Seems to me that this alone dwarfs the current Halbig/King/Burwell kerfluffle: by definition, the Public Option is itself simply one big subsidy.
Sweet.
"Medicare has not chosen to respond to its Medicare Advantage competition by improving its own product. Instead, Medicare chose to respond to its competition by using its power to kill its competitor, rather than compete with it. That illustrates pretty well how governments tend to "compete" and we all need to keep this in mind when the "public option" idea again surfaces."
Indeed.
But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Well, as Our Betters in DC© continue to "streamline" ObamaTax alternatives, they've (perhaps unwittingly) turned the spotlight once again to the Public Option, which for so long has been presumed dead.
So, what's the "Public Option," you may ask?
Well:
"The "Public Option" is a euphemism for Single Payer, the obvious end-game for the ObamaTax from the get-go.
And how do we know
this?
That is, the government sets up its own health insurance
So, why bring this up now? The Public Option is dead, right?
Maybe so, maybe not:
"The BHP [Basic Health Program] system could appeal to states that would have liked to see Congress offer a government-run, "public option" health insurance throughout the country, in addition to or in place of the PPACA exchange system"
In fact, the power of the government's purse is so strong, there's no "maybe" about it. Seems to me that this alone dwarfs the current Halbig/King/Burwell kerfluffle: by definition, the Public Option is itself simply one big subsidy.
Sweet.
Posts
