I have to say, Olympia Snowe is a Republican with really good ideas.

Vast LWC

<-Mohammed
Aug 4, 2009
10,390
871
83
New York
Another GOP senator open to health overhaul - Health care reform- msnbc.com

...Wednesday, Snowe tackled the most divisive issue still on the table: creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with private ones.

While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.

"I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage" in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged. At the same time, she added, "I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that's why we eliminate many egregious practices."

If the industry didn't follow through on congressionally-mandated changes aimed at making health care more affordable, she said, "then you could have the public option kick in immediately."

Snowe previously had proposed using the public option as an incentive, or a threat, to private insurers. This "trigger" option, or some version of it, has survived the bitter debate and scrutiny to remain a viable option for compromise...

Have a possible Public Option that would only kick in if the Private Insurers fail to meet their promises?

Now, I have to say, that is an excellent idea.

Private Insurers would never let a Public Option happen if they could avoid it, and so they would have to start being responsible.

:clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
LOL. I had to expect that a thread that wasn't either insulting someone or vehemently disagreeing with someone wouldn't receive a response.

Figures.
 
What a superb idea. As a Republican, I think her idea is brillant. It maximizes and meld the interests of progressivism and capitalism, giving private industry the opportunity to pursue profit while acting responsibly in the public interest. The true corporatists must be absolutely outraged.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
What a superb idea. As a Republican, I think her idea is brillant. It maximizes and meld the interests of progressivism and capitalism, giving private industry the opportunity to pursue profit while acting responsibly in the public interest. The true corporatists must be absolutely outraged.

I agree completely.

It melds the best features of two opposing philosphies to maximize the benefit to the taxpayer.
 
Another GOP senator open to health overhaul - Health care reform- msnbc.com

...Wednesday, Snowe tackled the most divisive issue still on the table: creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with private ones.

While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.

"I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage" in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged. At the same time, she added, "I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that's why we eliminate many egregious practices."

If the industry didn't follow through on congressionally-mandated changes aimed at making health care more affordable, she said, "then you could have the public option kick in immediately."

Snowe previously had proposed using the public option as an incentive, or a threat, to private insurers. This "trigger" option, or some version of it, has survived the bitter debate and scrutiny to remain a viable option for compromise...

Have a possible Public Option that would only kick in if the Private Insurers fail to meet their promises?

Now, I have to say, that is an excellent idea.

Private Insurers would never let a Public Option happen if they could avoid it, and so they would have to start being responsible.

:clap2::clap2::clap2:

This sounds great, who decides if the private insurers are "meeting" their promises? It is wide open for abuse.
That is the whole problem with this bill. It gives the gov power over the medical industry.
It offers no protections for patients or citizens (basically, theoretically, your body belongs to the USA gov once this bill is passed, if you are unable, or possibly if you are, a gov representative will be making the decisions for your health care).
This bill takes our gov from being a representative to a subjugative form of gov.
 
oh...they'll respond. the wingnuts will call her a RINO cause she's not a loon.

She is a loon and she is also a liberal democrat dressed in Republican clothes, she always has been and she has fooled the people of Maine into beleiving that she is a Republican, so has Susan Collins and Arlen Spector. They were the 3 so-called republicans that voted for the no stimulus stimulus bill without even reading it.

Since then Arlen has AGAIN changed parties to democrat. He sells out his constituents each and every time he votes and then changes parties to get re-elected. You people who are in these people's states need to pull your heads out of those dark, dark places and vote these sell-outs out of there. They are not doing you any favors.

This one's for you Jillian.

" Nothing is the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King Jr.
 
The pressure to certify that some arbitrary standard isnt being met, and triggering free health care for everyone will be overwhelming for politicians who can't resist a handout.
Olympia Snowe needs to go away for a very long time. Maybe she can move in with Nancy Pelosi and ride motorcycles or something.
 
I was talking about her idea to not use the public option. That's not "caving" to the Democrats.

Her idea about holding a Public Option ready over the heads of the insurance companies instead of implementing it, is an excellent one IMHO.
 
I was talking about her idea to not use the public option. That's not "caving" to the Democrats.

Her idea about holding a Public Option ready over the heads of the insurance companies instead of implementing it, is an excellent one IMHO.

It is exactly caving to the Democrats. A public option is being created. Whether it comes into existence by direct gov't action now or later is immaterial. Does anyone really think Congress is going to spend time on something they don't anticipate ever seeing in practice?
 
I was talking about her idea to not use the public option. That's not "caving" to the Democrats.

Her idea about holding a Public Option ready over the heads of the insurance companies instead of implementing it, is an excellent one IMHO.

It is exactly caving to the Democrats. A public option is being created. Whether it comes into existence by direct gov't action now or later is immaterial. Does anyone really think Congress is going to spend time on something they don't anticipate ever seeing in practice?

So you are telling us that even you cannot see the private insurers having the ability to somewhat control rising healthcare costs. Interesting.
 
I find it un-fucking-believable that not only do right-wingers want to say "NO" to everything, but they even try to demonize people who are simply trying to compromise.

I have never seen such blatant obstructionism of governemnt.

At least Logical4U brought up a valid point instead of just dismissing the woman's proposal:

This sounds great, who decides if the private insurers are "meeting" their promises? It is wide open for abuse.

I agree. There would need to be some sort of independent oversight to determine this.

As far as this is concerned though:


That is the whole problem with this bill. It gives the gov power over the medical industry.
It offers no protections for patients or citizens (basically, theoretically, your body belongs to the USA gov once this bill is passed, if you are unable, or possibly if you are, a gov representative will be making the decisions for your health care).
This bill takes our gov from being a representative to a subjugative form of gov.

What would be worse about a government representative making decisions about your health care, than a representative of a private company that specifically wants to make as much of a profit as possible?

At least the government representative is nominally looking out for your benefit, not his bottom line.


Be that as it may, having a Public Option would not be a government takeover of health care, whether it was enacted or not.
 
Another GOP senator open to health overhaul - Health care reform- msnbc.com

...Wednesday, Snowe tackled the most divisive issue still on the table: creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with private ones.

While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.

"I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage" in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged. At the same time, she added, "I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that's why we eliminate many egregious practices."

If the industry didn't follow through on congressionally-mandated changes aimed at making health care more affordable, she said, "then you could have the public option kick in immediately."

Snowe previously had proposed using the public option as an incentive, or a threat, to private insurers. This "trigger" option, or some version of it, has survived the bitter debate and scrutiny to remain a viable option for compromise...

Have a possible Public Option that would only kick in if the Private Insurers fail to meet their promises?

Now, I have to say, that is an excellent idea.

Private Insurers would never let a Public Option happen if they could avoid it, and so they would have to start being responsible.

:clap2::clap2::clap2:

ok....if i owned a private insurance company....and if the public option existed.....i would continue to cherry pick my clients and serve those that paid the most and got sick the least.....the government would then be forced to insure the the high risk group and the tax payer would have to subsidize the cost as the high risk crowd would end up costing them more and would not be able to pay the high premiums to cover their care.....
 
It is exactly caving to the Democrats. A public option is being created. Whether it comes into existence by direct gov't action now or later is immaterial. Does anyone really think Congress is going to spend time on something they don't anticipate ever seeing in practice?

So you are telling us that even you cannot see the private insurers having the ability to somewhat control rising healthcare costs. Interesting.

Indeed, Rabbi, making this statement makes it seem as if you have no belief at all that insurance companies can adhere to even a basic level of control.

It seems to me that we should be worried, that even people who side with the insurance companies are convinced that premiums will soon be spiraling out of control.
 

Forum List

Back
Top