<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Arizona has a public option</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2009/10/22/arizona-has-a-public-option/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2009/10/22/arizona-has-a-public-option/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:08:46 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rick Ungar</title>
		<link>http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2009/10/22/arizona-has-a-public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Ungar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trueslant.com/erikkain/?p=38#comment-30</guid>
		<description>E.D. They can. And you are correct that Arizona has had such a program for awhile. The difference is that under Carper&#039;s plan, the federal government will provide a lot of money to help the states get the programs together in the &#039;opt in&#039; scenario. This could well motivate states, who are not having an easy go of it these days, to go with a public option while they have the opportunity of getting the federal dollars that will come with it. I do, however, think that the opt-out plan has more teeth, particularly in red states. It&#039;s much easier to go with the federal program and let the state&#039;s residents decide if they want it or not (on an individual basis.) The other problem with &#039;opt-in&#039; is the intense lobbying that will occur on the state level by insurance companies seeking to avoid it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>E.D. They can. And you are correct that Arizona has had such a program for awhile. The difference is that under Carper&#8217;s plan, the federal government will provide a lot of money to help the states get the programs together in the &#8216;opt in&#8217; scenario. This could well motivate states, who are not having an easy go of it these days, to go with a public option while they have the opportunity of getting the federal dollars that will come with it. I do, however, think that the opt-out plan has more teeth, particularly in red states. It&#8217;s much easier to go with the federal program and let the state&#8217;s residents decide if they want it or not (on an individual basis.) The other problem with &#8216;opt-in&#8217; is the intense lobbying that will occur on the state level by insurance companies seeking to avoid it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kylemathews</title>
		<link>http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2009/10/22/arizona-has-a-public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>kylemathews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trueslant.com/erikkain/?p=38#comment-29</guid>
		<description>I would take a gander that the traditional/expected response from the left is that 50 public options is a.)inefficient b.) bad and c.) unaffordable for the states right now/ever. 

That the public option would be large enough to be cheaper and more cost-effective. 

Personally, I&#039;m in the McArdle boat asking, what is the public option going to have to accomplish that goal that Medicare doesn&#039;t, except fewer people? 

With the caveat that business that find it cheaper not to cover their employees will end up dumping a few million in to the public option (too bad if you liked that insurance).

The opt out program seems like the stimulus approach to healthcare reform. &quot;Sure you can opt out if your state legislature will turn down whatever amount of money is in this bill for them.&quot; 

The thing that seems interesting about the &quot;opt-in&quot; option is that it paves the way for regional public options, so Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado could pull together. Tell me if I&#039;m wrong but that would new, potentially competitive, and flexible. All things that don&#039;t describe either our current system or many of the reforms likely to pass.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would take a gander that the traditional/expected response from the left is that 50 public options is a.)inefficient b.) bad and c.) unaffordable for the states right now/ever. </p>
<p>That the public option would be large enough to be cheaper and more cost-effective. </p>
<p>Personally, I&#8217;m in the McArdle boat asking, what is the public option going to have to accomplish that goal that Medicare doesn&#8217;t, except fewer people? </p>
<p>With the caveat that business that find it cheaper not to cover their employees will end up dumping a few million in to the public option (too bad if you liked that insurance).</p>
<p>The opt out program seems like the stimulus approach to healthcare reform. &#8220;Sure you can opt out if your state legislature will turn down whatever amount of money is in this bill for them.&#8221; </p>
<p>The thing that seems interesting about the &#8220;opt-in&#8221; option is that it paves the way for regional public options, so Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado could pull together. Tell me if I&#8217;m wrong but that would new, potentially competitive, and flexible. All things that don&#8217;t describe either our current system or many of the reforms likely to pass.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian In NYC</title>
		<link>http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2009/10/22/arizona-has-a-public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian In NYC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trueslant.com/erikkain/?p=38#comment-27</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why can’t states that want public options just set them up on their own?&quot;

Money!  The states would need federal funds to get this thing off the ground and operating for the first few years!  Also pool size, states like NY have a big enough population pool to support a working public option, smaller states do not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why can’t states that want public options just set them up on their own?&#8221;</p>
<p>Money!  The states would need federal funds to get this thing off the ground and operating for the first few years!  Also pool size, states like NY have a big enough population pool to support a working public option, smaller states do not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

