Public Option or Anti-Trust Exemption?

[Motown_Johnny]

If Speaker Pelosi decides to address one and only one of the two issues in the HCR Bill which would you prefer?


I would rather see the anti-trust exemption end. I think it would be better in the long run than a watered down Public Option that has had so much negative publicity in the last 8 months that it would hurt us in the mid-terms. Defending anti-trust would be hard for free market (R)s to do and might also put them in the position of being on the defensive.

[Oregone]

1. Anti-Trust is much more important

The Public Option was sold to "compete against" and "keep insurers honest", but it became an uncompetitive, level-playing field joke. The Public Option has surmounted to a big worthless distraction that shoved liberals onto a bandwagon that sold mandated, subsidized exchange to the country.

But with the anti-trust exemption in place, this bill spells bad news for the entire country. Do the fucking math. Seriously. If a shareholder expects their shares to yield x in dividends, and yet you control profits (via a premium to expense ratio), just figure out what insurance companies have to collectively agree to do to keep at least a per share yield of x (jack negotiated rates through the roof across the board). This exemption eliminates competition, and screws over the American people bad.

Any meaningful reform should have prioritized repealing it. Again and again people are reminded that this may be less than meaningful

[Motown_Johnny]

2. From your keyboard to Nancy Pelosi's assistant's computer screen (I hope)

They read DU... don't they???

[optimator]

3. mandates are an anti-trust exemption

they can revoke it all they want, will make no difference.
Who would enforce anti-trust laws on any big business anyway?
Obama ? LOL