Legal Commentary

LATimes: Mandate Minus PO = Increased Health Costs And Budget Deficits

By Big Tent Democrat

If ConservaDems and Blue Dogs really are into cost controls as they claim, and are really worried about budget deficits as they claim, then they should demand a public option. Via FDL, the LATimes reports:

[Congress'] reluctance to control premium costs comes despite the fact that they intend to require virtually all Americans to get health insurance, an unprecedented mandate -- long sought by insurance companies -- that would mark the first time the federal government has compelled consumers to buy a single industry's product, effectively creating a captive market. "We are about to force at least 30 million people into an insurance market where the sharks are circling," said California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat who served as the state's insurance commissioner for eight years. "Without effective protections, they will be eaten alive."

Soaring premiums coupled with millions of new customers forced to buy policies would likely mean higher costs for taxpayers to cover government subsidies for lower-income families and individuals. They could also mean bigger bills for people who get benefits.

(Emphasis supplied.) How's that for a campaign theme in 2010 - "Vote Dem - We Made Sure Insurance Companies Screw You."

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 25, 2009 (boomark / email).