"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange... It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and would also keep pressure on private insurance companies to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better."
A government run not-for-profit option would not only be less efficient because it can afford to be, but also because it has the American taxpayer behind it (much like the banks on Wall St do now) if it does run in the red (even advocates will not say that the taxpayer will not pay for it, the current plans to increase medicare tax for those making $200k a year, top tax bracket increases 4.6 percent, 5.4 percent surtax on incomes over $500k,
increasing average top marginal tax rate to over 52 percent). This creates
artificial pressure on insurance companies that causes prices to fall, but the net effect is that there will be a lower supply of healthcare (think bare bones insurance). Again, no one will be forced to choose it, but who doesn't want a free lunch???
"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. The only thing this plan will eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud. And we will create an independent panel of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead."
Unfortunately, the plan is
estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years. "The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House proposal would actually increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years." If the government can find hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, then good for them, but I seriously doubt the private insurance market would miss this money if they are so greedy. And an independent panel created by the government (whose "appoint-ers" (politicians) are looking to push their constituents agenda, ie their own political doctrine) would be anything but independent by its very nature.
