You hit it on the head, I am still trying to figure out what the big hoop rah is about when it comes to having a public option when it is just that; an option.

I am one of those who doesn't believe that the majority of Americans are idiots, even if they do believe that they are responsible for themselves and the benefits they earn. Unlike many who have posted here, they don't consider capitalism as an evil concept that aids only big business. They don't accept that government's role is to to tax our paychecks in order to pay back those who supported their elections no matter how corrupt or damaging the recipients may be.

Obama's health plan, his mismanaged stimulus plan and the mammoth deficit spending that he advocates all penalize every working American, as well as future generations in our country. They also undermine small businesses, which historically have been the primary source of new jobs in our country. If anyone has paid attention, most of the money spent under the stimulus plan has gone to big banks, giant organization like AIG and General Motors and corrupt leeches like ACORN, not to American who are seeking honest employment and not to small businesses which can't afford to hire powerful lobbyists or donate large campaign contributions.

I know of no economic philosophy other than socialism which believes that government, rather than individual citizens, is responsible for paying our way through life. Capitalism is concerned with providing opportnuities for us to better ourselves by rewarding those who make the greatest contributions to our economy. To think another approach would benefit America would be like believing that the government should assume full responsibility for saving our souls.

With all due respect, VC, may I suggest a little more research on the financial meltdown would be instructive?

The meltdown was caused by government interference in the free market.

In the 1960s you went to your local bank for a mortgage, the bank assessed its risk based upon your ability to pay, and if you passed the bank's criteria the deal was closed. The bank was the mortgage holder for the entire duration of the mortgage. If you had a problem several years down the road--medical bills, etc.--you knew exactly whom to see so maybe you could miss a couple of payments and tack them on to the end of the mortgage.

Then the politicians got involved. In 1977 Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which created a small program to permit otherwise unqualified borrowers to obtain mortgages at reduced rates. Constituents were happy (More owned homes.), and the politicians were happy (They got re-elected.). The program was small enough that foreclosures didn't rock the system.

Then the community activists got involved in the 1980s and early 1990s. They complained that banks weren't lending in distressed neighborhoods ("red-lining"), which were predominantly minority areas, and that this constituted discrimination. Activists--Barack Obama was one of them.--sued the banks. So, the banks were caught between a rock and a hard place: If they loaned to unqualified buyers, they risked foreclosures; if they didn't, they were sued for discrimination.

Enter the Clinton administration. President Clinton greatly expanded the breadth of the CRA program, so the politicians and their constituents were happy. But in order to get the banks on board, the government removed the banks' risk: The banks would simply make the loans and immediately re-sell them, so someone else was left holding the bag in the event of foreclosure. So, lending institutions didn't care anymore about a potential buyer's financial qualifications or ability to repay the loan. Whenever a homeowner had a problem, he didn't know whom to see because no one knew who owned the mortgage--It had been sold many times, and bonds were issued using the mortgage (with others) as the backing asset. So, foreclosures happened on a much larger scale.

There's more--such as the Fed holding interest rates down, thereby increasing demand for homes, with the resultant bubble in prices, and the securitization of the loans--but I'll let you look up the rest yourself. The point is that government caused the meltdown by its actions as I have described, and by its inaction through the regulatory agencies later. Yes, private greed had a role, but only in the later stages. I don't think the runaway greed would have occurred without the government facilitation I have already described.

As for health care, we need to distinguish between "right" government involvement, and "wrong" government involvement. You are correct that there isn't enough competition among health insurers. That is because of "wrong" government involvement. Health insurers are regulated at the state level. This has led to artificial lines drawn on a map: Company A can insure here, but not there; State B has too few people to make it worthwhile for Company C to offer policies in that state; some areas have only a few health insurers; and so on. Remove some of these government restrictions, and you will have your competition, VC.

Then maybe private insurers should issue health coverage to everyone, regardless of their state of health. And, maybe, banks should issue loans to everyone who applies, regardless of their financial condition...oh, wait, I think that's what helped caused this recession in the first place, right?

No one is applauding the banks for taking risks with loan applicants. They're being called greedy now. So what happens if the health insurers end up issuing coverage for everyone, taking a hit in claims and have to raise rates to compensate?

"susan1hanson1" provided an excellent summary of how government intervention lead to our recent financial problems.

I also recall that during the last two years of the Bush Administration, it was the Republican administration which warned of potentially catastrophic risks while requesting closer oversight of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, both of which were leading contributors to the growth of subprime mortgages and the housing bubble. Their requests were rejected by Democrats, notably by chairmen of the committees responsible for overseeing the two agencies: Senator Dodd and Representative Barney Franks.

I don't hold either party blameless, but decades of short-sighted liberal pressures certainly were the main causes of today's financial woes.

For lefties in government options and being able to opt out, must become mandates later and they know they will. Why? Because they make sure they always do. it is part of their long term plan. The prime example of this is Social Security and Medicare. Most people are too young to remember adn do not know know that both started out as - you guessed it - options you could opt yourself out of by having private plans instead. The people that passed these options into law - opted themselves out if them as example. But too many others for teh left's liking did too.

What made them change the laws to a mandate, except for them, was that people at the time didn't want it, could do much better on their own with private plans and were opting themsleves out of SS and Medicare at alarming rates that would doom the public option to failure. People knew then like we know now that SS and Medicare were ponzi schemes that were - you guessed it - doomed to failure becsue new enrollees had to pay the way for those that were getting benefits instead of building their own accounts like they could privately. They could also pass on their unused retirement funds to their heirs too.

People also knew that the average age an American lived to then was 57 years of age when the retirement age for SS was 65 - who would want to pay into that again? Elected Democrats ended up forcing people into it.

There as still some folks who had opted out, through their health insurance and private retirement plans, mainly city, county and state employees who had those plans at the time or could quickly get them, that were grandfathered in when the option not to have Medicare and SS were removed by congress to force everyone else on them.

See this is history and Democrats repeating themsleves and youngsters don't read history any more nor do they try to discover the facts. When Medicare and SS were enacted people knew they could do better privately on their own and they were of course right as rain not to get stuck with paying into Ponzi schemes.

Youngsters today are too uneducated, lazy and stupid (becsue of public socialized education) to care so they are doomed to repeat the past's mistakes. Lefties are just brainwashed, insane and totally dependent on the governement for everything and don't pay any taxes as it is and everything given to them for free - even if is foul smelling swill not worth being forced to eat by their slave masters.

The rest if us prfer and demand the option of better fare than anything the government can ver give us.

My family has really great health care insurance that we pay for ourselves. But in the end we all pay for those who do not have health care insurance. We really need to have true health care reform that will focus more on improving the American diet and increasing the knowledge of healthy lifestyle choices that will result in actually preventing illness and reducing the cost of health care for all.

What a moronic statement. My employees are offered health insurance. We pay half, they pay half. But, in the past 10 years, what was once affordable is no longer. One, with a wife a kid and another on the way, got hit with an increase so absurd, he wanted to cancel. It was health care or food and rent. When over 1/3 of his pay was for health care, then something really wrong is happenening. No pre-existing, no special needs, just doctor visits, prescriptions if needed and emergency.
His answer, let the ER be there primary physician and don't pay.
I have him on a very basic, high deductable plan. But, still extremely expensive. He's 30, she's 21. Not in the high risk age by any stretch. And, you guessed it, only ONE company to search from.
There is a serious problem and it is only getting worse.

We do work and we were having to pay 1000.00 a month for a family of three and the insurance didn't pay a tenth of the cost. Because of pre-exsisting conditions. Something is wrong. When a family of three pays the same amount as a family of seven. The hospitals and clinics are the blame for over charging. A asprin cost 10.00 at a hospital. Something is wrong. The system

They can keep the public education, too. Better off teaching kids at home.