Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 ANALYSIS 
10

Health Care Debate Turns Nastier

Share

(Newser) – The claws have come out in the Capitol Hill debate on whether the government should create a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, Politico reports. One of the first tangible signs begins today with an advocacy group's TV ad campaign against Sen. Charles Grassley in his home state of Iowa. Grassley has been the most vocal opponent of a public plan, arguing the government is “an unfair competitor” that would run private companies out of business.

“He was the only one who injected that deep policy disagreement,” said an official at union giant AFSCME, which backs a public plan. “It was a wake-up call to people on both sides to begin the discussion.” AFSCME, meanwhile, recently severed ties with a coalition of insurers and consumer advocates seeking compromise. Though any GOP-supported public plan is likely a pipe dream, Grassley said he would for the time being “take the same approach the president takes,” which is wait and see.

President Barack Obama.
President Barack Obama.   (AP Photo)
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Private health insurance companies have been in control for too long. They decide who you can see, what’s covered and what’s not. What if you had a choice?

- Ad campaign for a public plan

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
10 comments
VIEWING:
 
northeast
Mar 21, 09 2:29 PM CDT
That's considered "nasty"? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Toon
Mar 21, 09 5:47 PM CDT
Yes because the monied class are gentle folk unused to being attacked for their simple need to maintain their traditional culture of shopping, travel and fine art patronage.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
freethemall
Mar 21, 09 4:03 PM CDT
I say if a public insurance plan drove private insurance companies out of business, that would be a good thing for 2 reasons. First, the profit motive should have no place, when it comes to public health. Second, the very idea of insurance is to share risk. Therefore larger the group of people sharing the risk, the better. In this context, I do not see what the good with having a multiplicity of insurance companies is. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
wbdace
Jun 8, 09 11:49 AM CDT
I agree about the profit motive, I'm fortunate to belong to a non-profit HMO. The government should do all it can to encourage non-profits.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Derni
Mar 21, 09 4:47 PM CDT
Gee-did I miss something? Halth insurance companies are making loads of money-dictating to us what we can and cannot have done-they refuse to insure you if you have a pre=esxiting condition-the are responsible along with other health care business for the largest part of the budget in a company and home-Drive the vampires out of business-they live off our blood now and don't insure us when we get old or become a risk! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.