Sanders, LBJ, JFK, Ike, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt -- rank them from most Socialist to least Socialist

[bvar22]

44. Mandating that every American BUY a product from a FOR PROFIT corporation that:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Provides no useful service

*Keeps NO inventory

....is NOT what I call "Progressive".
It is a straight REPUBLICAN (conservative business friendly) plan.

Now, if the ACA had included a national Public Option,
owned by The People and available to everyone,
then it might qualify.

If you remember during the 2008 debates, Obama insisted that any plan must include a Public Option,
because THAT will keep the Insurance Industry accountable.
He publicly ridiculed Hillary's plan for Mandates.

The new regs are applaudable...IF they are enforced.
As far as I know, no Watch Dog Agency with teeth has been created to enforce these regulations. There is also no national complaint agency to monitor the quality of the services. The consumer is STILL on his own to file a lawsuit and take the Insurance Monster to State Court, which can last YEARS and cost the consumer much money trying to fight these vultures.


The Public Option must be a National program, because no state has a risk pool great enough to spread the risk and make it competitive with the For Profits.
Any individual state that tries to compete with the Major For Profits will never be able to cover their relatively few customers at a competitive price. However, a National Public Option would have enough weight to make some demands in pricing, and actually save the consumer money.
The ACA stipulates that the individual state run Public Option MUST make a profit from year 1.


I wonder if Hillary has realized that Obama passed HER (and Romney's, and the Heritage Foundation) Health Care program after ridiculing her for her proposal during the debates.

In order to make the ACA "progressive", the National Public Option is a necessity.
Without it, it is just another business friendly plan to transfer wealth to the Corporate owners & investors.