House health care bill preserves public option, expands Medicaid

Please ask him why the Reps did not start working on this 8 years ago if it is so important to them?

5% on 1,000,000 is only $50,000 which is more than the average income of people. The people on the low end who work which ultimatly makes these people rich should be afforded health coverage. 5% is just a drop in the bucket and probably less than these people usually spend on extracurricular activities.

I found it curious to hear GOP Congressman Shadegg suggest that a family, as our foundation business entity, should have the same tax deduction for medical insurance premiums as our non-family business entities enjoy.
It was none other than Pres Ronald Reagan who removed that deduction from individuals and families in his Tax "Reform" of 1986.
Perhaps the Congressman would then be willing to completely repeal that and other family budget killing changes in that Federal law and Reagan's follow up tax "reforms" in 1987?? Maybe then, the American Family could eventually regain Middle Class status...

Larry, please ask your Republican guest how a health care reform bill that "forces" people to pay taxes that may help pay for abortions when they don't want to based on moral reasons is any different from being forced to pay taxes that help build missiles, bombs and weapons in the eyes of those of us who adamantly oppose war as a moral, religious/spiritual mandate?

Jerry Flanagan is talking about the public option as if anyone could just decide to opt out of their private insurance and buy into the public option. I don't think that this has been proposed. If this were the case only the highest risk people would go with the public option and it would be unsustainable. I think that it's obvious that everyone should be in the public risk pool, but the insurance lobby won't allow that.

Please ask if public golf courses have put country clubs out of business.

I think the idea of a public option is completely illogical. It would be like allowing baseball umpires to have their own team in the major leagues. Umpires do a good job of calling the game, but I doubt any of them can play as well as the players.

However, if the umpires were allowed to play, they'd win every time--not because they were the better team, but because they have the unique power to call all the balls and strikes. The team with the least skills (the umpires) would win every game, and the entire game of baseball would suffer.

There's nothing fair about that, nor is there anything fair about allowing the government to enter into an industry--health care or otherwise. The power to tax and regulate, with a virtually limitless financial backing, provides the 'public option' with an advantage so unfair it would threaten the quality of the entire industry.

Additionally, I think the post office analogy supports *opposition* to a public option. The face value price of a stamp is arbitrary and misleading, because the rest of the cost of mailing a letter is subsidized by taxes and debt. Service is strained, and every time I go to buy stamps the machines are busted. Why couldn't UPS or FedEx carry mail competently and at a decent price?

Of this much I'm certain: Nothing is free, and the real cost of something must always be paid, no matter what the number on the tag says.