Read It Here First

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2009/06/read-it-here-first

FutureOfCapitalism.com, "Rove on 'Socialized Health Care,'" June 11, 2009, 7:02 a.m.:

It seems quite a straddle to argue simultaneously that a public option would (1) fix prices at "less than market rates" and therefore "undercut private insurers," i.e., be too cheap and (2) be "far too expensive" at the same time. If 71% is too expensive for the government, why shouldn't 100% be too expensive for individuals and businesses. I'm not an advocate of socialized medicine, but if Republicans or anyone else is going to block it from advancing further than it already has already in America, they are unlikely to succeed in doing so by arguing that it would simultaneously be too cheap and too expensive.

Slate's Mickey Kaus, "You Want Irreversible, Rove? I'll Show You Irreversible," June 14, 2009, 12:01 a.m.:

I also don't understand how a public plan would 1) lure customers by paying extra-low fees to doctors and hospitals (causing business to decide that dropping private coverage was "cost effective") while at the same time it would 2) be "far too expensive." I can see the one flaw, and I can see the other. I can't see both at the same time.

by Editor  |  Jun 15, 2009 at 6:27 am Related Topics:  Health Care receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free futureofcapitalism.com mailing list