Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong

Robert Reich's Blog by Robert Reich | Jun. 29, 2009 (Opinion)

(Blog Post) Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America's non-system of health care -- private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers -- have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

See All Reviews »

View | |

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Review

P9110066_thumb
3.8
 by Patricia Blochowiak - Jun. 29, 2009

Overall, a very good summary of the advantages of having a public option for financing health care. Saying that "It's the only way we have a prayer of taming health-care costs" ignores the very real savings that would come from having a Patient-Centered Medical Home.

It would be nice if he would have included health care reform, and not just changing the financing, in the discussion.

(19 answers)

Patricia's Rating

Overall
3.8

Good
from 19 answers
Quality
3.8
Facts
5.0
Fairness
3.0
Information
3.0
Insight
4.0
Style
5.0
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
1.0
Context
3.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
5.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
2.0
Relevance
5.0
Transparency
2.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.0
More How our ratings work »