~> > But the "public option" does nothing to help people
with pre-existing
~> > conditions.  The government insurance company is supposed to COMPETE with
 
~> That was all part of the bill, it came with the public option and it's one 
~> of the elements of the bill the Republicans disagree with.

Since you mentioned the "public option" specifically, and since the other
parts of the bill can be passed without the "public option," I was
discussing it and not the whole bill.

  Their charge is 
~> this program would establish death panels, but by comparison, they already 
~> have death panels. It's the insurance companies who now decide who lives
and 
~> who dies.

The whole "death panel" thing was overblown, but there is a fundamental
difference between decisions of a private company and decisions of the
government.  If you don't like one company, you can go to another.  It is
not always easy or costless, but it is a lot easier than going to another
government.

There was an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend.
 A retired couple in Massachusetts has an insurance policy through IBM. 
Mass.  has a mandatory insurance law, and the state just decided to
increase the minimum requirements of the policy, which means they will have
to either pay a $1000 "fine" to the state or pay hundreds more each month
to get a higher coverage than the current coverage that they are happy
with!  Since IBM has made a commitment to them as part of a set of
retirement benefits, it cannot just change it quite that easily.  And
corporations have to be responsive to employees and shareholders and
customer public relations in their benefits decisions.  Worst case, they
could look for another insurer.  Or they can look for a different state. 
But if the federal government adopts a similar insurance law, it would be
even tougher to find a different country.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a