public insurance is simply more efficient. Medicare holds costs down better than private health insurance. The substantially public systems employed by every other industrialized nation cost less and cover more than the American model. So the question became how to marry the policy need for public insurance with the political need to preserve the status quo. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
To:
Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.
Note:
A breakdown of public-vs-private health insurance for all of us. Favors a public model, but still highly informative, clear, honest.
The private insurance market is a mess. It’s supposed to cover the sick and instead competes to insure the well. It employs platoons of adjusters whose sole job is to ... More »
An excellent articulation of the pro-public insurance side of the health care reform debate. Loses points for fairness, but is sourced very well.
A remarkably unsatisfying piece that reads like "Health Care Reform for Dummies." The author seems mostly motivated by his political agenda: though he is frank about favoring a strong public insurance plan, "create some kind of public insurance plan" seems to be his motto. Even the points he makes seem poorly supported. Nowhere in the article does he clarify that he is talking ONLY about public INSURANCE plans, not government-administered plans that operate differently and which ... More »
The article gives a description of the current top options and their impacts, and states a preference for a strong public plan option.
The private insurance market is a mess. It’s supposed to cover the sick and instead competes to insure the well. It employs platoons of adjusters whose sole job is to ... More »
Good basic story about the differences between the three plans and who favors which one. Author explains his own personal bias.
Retrieving Comments
