I put no faith in polls at all, but I do put faith in history. Please tell me why you support the public option and give me an example of where the govt. has done any social program well, within budget, and solved a problem?
What govt. does is social engineer and create dependence. Right now almost 50% of the people pay no Federal Income Taxes yet consume most of the services in this country. Those people are dependent on the govt. Offering the public option hurts private industry and thus innovation and creativity.
There is a great divide in this country today, people like you who refuse to except history and others who understand the reality of liberalism.
I'll tell you straight...
I don't believe any social program has been run efficiently throughout this country's 200+ year history. But that DOES NOT obsolve our government from doing everything it can to provide aid to its people by any means it deems necessarily by the electorate to look after and promote the general welfare of the country as a whole.
Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, EPA, VA, DEA, FDA, Dept of Humans Services (DHS), etc, etc. All of this agencies/programs were designed to promote the general welfare of the people, to provide a means whereby those who have been economically, financially or in some way socially disadvantaged to give them a means to lift themselves up and have a fair shake at having a decent quality of life. Now, the overall authority with some of these programs remain at the federal level while others have been delegated and/or shared by the states. I think those who are in opposition of some of the more commonly known social programs, i.e., welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, VA, forget that these programs have a shared responsibility between the federal government and the states. It's not just the fed that run these programs inefficiently. It's also the fault of the states. But what's at the root of this inefficiency?
MONEY!
No state wants to take full responsibility for these social programs because they know if they do their government subsidy will stop!
No state wants to run these social programs more efficiently and, thus, eliminate the co-dependency status of their residences because they know if the financial kickback they receive from the fed will cease!
The irony here is the states have yet to realize that the more of their residences they can off of these social programs and, thus, become independent the more economically solvent the state can be. Put people to work earning a living for themselves bring more tax revenue to that state. Unfornately, what we have is 50 nanny states. Personally, I like the idea of "work-fare" because it empowers the people who depend on it to get a leg up in society. Unfortunately, not one state that has enacted workfare run their programs as efficiently as their laws were designed to do. Nonetheless, that does NOT obsolve the federal government from doing everything it can to provide for the general welfare of its people. So, inefficient as some or most social programs may be, I think they serve a very important purpose. It's really up to the states moreso than the federal government to make these programs work more efficiently because that power has been delegated to them despite the federal government setting the standards.
Now, as to the public option, I was for it because it would have promoted openeness across the board in personal health insurance. If the program would have been passed as originally intended, statelines would have been open and the people could have obtained their health insurance from any state in the union no matter where they lived, no matter what job they migrated to, no matter what type of health insurance package they purchased and no matter how that insurance was provided to them - employer-based, individually acquired, via high risk pools, co-ops or state-based health insurance exchange. The health insurance industry would have been an open playing field, but the industry as a whole would have remained intact and been far more viable, IMO, because it would have promoted greater competition. For me personally, I liked the idea that if I changed jobs or moved from one state to the next be in a neighboring state or clear across country I could retain my health insurance if I were satisfied with what I had. As things stand now, no one can do that. So, if I lived in CA but moved to Maine, I couldn't keep my current health insurance UNLESS my relocation was at the request of my present employer. Otherwise, we're all screwed in that regard.
Now, granted, not alot of us will ever have to deal with that problem, but it was nice to think that should I move from one state to the next I could keep my health insurance plan under the public option as originally designed. Or if I wanted to migrate from my employer-based insurance plan and find one I thought was better at a reduced cost out-of-state I could do that, too. For the insurance company that felt they were losing customers, I say tough! You argue captialism...I say they should provide a better, more economical product! That's their problem, not mine. IMO, it would have been captialism at it's finest...the insurance company that provided the worst policies go under while those companies that provide better at a fair price remain afloat. It's what Conservatives wanted, right? The certainly would have had it with the public option or been forced to adjust their practises and better compete in the marketplace.
You can't have it both ways.
