Bill O'Reilly supports a type of public option

[Twisp]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_290658.html

Text:

O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?


OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

[pelathais]

A "public option" is the thing that's in place within the Medicare and Medicaid systems. It has been useful in slowing down the rate of inflation in health care in those areas served by Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem with health care is the rate of inflation. It's astronomical and ridiculous. We need to reign that in. Give the quasi-governmental roles that corporations and insurance companies have played, they can be seen as part of the problem. What we need is a real free market - one where I pay for my own health care. That way it's my job to shop around a bit and be responsible for my own health.

By giving my health care dollars to my employer and telling them to "shop around," I'm simply adding an expensive layer of complexity to the problem. And, over time, the larger a company gets - the more it acts like government. That's a basic economic axiom. "Private" companies and corporations are not the solution to the problem; and sadly, most people see this as "either government / or my employer..." You're pretty much in a bind either way.

By giving my dollars to my government, I am just throwing them into the vast black hole of debt obligations that my children and grandchildren will curse me for; and rightly so.

We need free minds and free markets to have any other type of freedom. Let an army of angry consumers have the power to drive down health care costs. It's the only way that'll work after the Chinese stop buying our federal debt bonds.

BTW... "Huffpo" for an analysis of Bill O'Reilly? Is that really fair?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by pelathais

A "public option" is the thing that's in place within the Medicare and Medicaid systems. It has been useful in slowing down the rate of inflation in health care in those areas served by Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem with health care is the rate of inflation. It's astronomical and ridiculous. We need to reign that in. Give the quasi-governmental roles that corporations and insurance companies have played, they can be seen as part of the problem. What we need is a real free market - one where I pay for my own health care. That way it's my job to shop around a bit and be responsible for my own health.

By giving my health care dollars to my employer and telling them to "shop around," I'm simply adding an expensive layer of complexity to the problem. And, over time, the larger a company gets - the more it acts like government. That's a basic economic axiom. "Private" companies and corporations are not the solution to the problem; and sadly, most people see this as "either government / or my employer..." You're pretty much in a bind either way.

By giving my dollars to my government, I am just throwing them into the vast black hole of debt obligations that my children and grandchildren will curse me for; and rightly so.

We need free minds and free markets to have any other type of freedom. Let an army of angry consumers have the power to drive down health care costs. It's the only way that'll work after the Chinese stop buying our federal debt bonds.

BTW... "Huffpo" for an analysis of Bill O'Reilly? Is that really fair?

Looks like they were just repeating what he said. The only analysis I see is where they referenced a study.