Schumer and the Public Option - Which is it Chuck?
I told you about Senator Schumer and his support for the “Public Option” in my previous post and suggested that we be weary of ill-defined terms like the “Public Option.”
Well, no sooner to I post and I see this over at Firedoglake’s campaign silo.
Strong language eh? Well, that was this morning, apparently by this afternoon Senator Schumer was walking back from his own words. From the AP:
Schumer said that while he supports a public option he also is open to discussing the use of nonprofit insurance cooperatives as competitors to established insurance companies.
“I am not saying that the public option should be the only option. There are some who do say that, particularly in my party.
So, Which Senator Schumer should we believe?
I thought co-ops were off the table.
Might want to revisit the real history lesson behind Teddy Roosevelt.
Related posts:
Maybe I just don’t understand how the insurance business works– but how would the co-ops be any different than a mutual insurance company?
And how is a mutual insurance company (for-profit, but owned by the customers, so effectively no profit motive) different than a not-for-profit insurance company?
And isn’t Excellus BC/BS a not-for profit insurance company?
Which is a long way of saying– why would a state-level insurance co-op be any different/better than our current more or less one insurance company BC/BS town?
But maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree and that’s a question for Chuck, not you.
[...] Remember this strong statement and backtrack? [...]
[...] Remember this strong statement and backtrack? [...]
[...] Care. He is in favors of a Public Option (Good) except when he isn’t opposed to something that will cause the Public Option [...]