CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

[Don Klipstein]

I know dozens of Canadians with 100% rate of being at-least-highly unwilling to trade their healthcare coverage for what they would get if they moved to USA.

I know more USA citizens than I know Canadians, and my experience of such larger number of USA citizens is that a "large and substantial minority" of my family members, friends, co-workers and neighbors would prefer to have USA copy what Canada has over what USA has.

In fact, this "minority" of my USA-citizen family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers that are very dis-satisfied by what USA has is big enough to be barely a minority. I hope that my fellow USA citizens would have high rate of being dis-satisfied with what USA has, due to gubmint spending %-of-GDP by gubmint on healthcare coverage being about the same as is the case for Canada, while the average USA working family (and employer thereof) spend in addition $12K, maybe $13K annually for private healthcare coverage.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

Is the drop in support due to weakening of the "Public Option"?

Why should something that is optional be lobbied against? My answer is that the "Public Option" cause "toes to be stepped on" by competition by a competitor - please remember that the "Public Option" is an "option" and not mandatory.

With USA's Congresscritters weakening support for the "Public Option" in response to efforts by lobbyists, I am not surprised by Congress getting low approval ratings.

I merely wish that my fellow Americans would not state in the voting booth that their Congresscritter is worthy of re-election while "most others are not".

I also wish for more Americans to vote in "primary elections" - to vote to replace their "congresscritter" (or more-local politician) with someone else of same-"party", as opposed to being unwilling/lazy until chance comes later in the year to vote for replacement with the low-vote-count-towards replacement being likely of dfifferent party

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Kurt Ullman]

I'd settle for a public option that is merely a competitor. The Public Option would be, under the rules of the proposals, expressly forbidden from negotiating with Hospitals and Healthcare providers. Rather, they will use the MCare pay scales which are mandated by MCare on a take it or leave it basis (and more and more are leaving it by refusing to take more than a certain number of government patients). That alone will make it impossible for the privates to compete. Then there is another provision that states the Feds will have the ability to decide what is an acceptable loss ratio (and thus a big part of the profits) and demand refunds should they go over it one year. However, there is no mechanism for the private insurers to recoup those years that they are under the loss ratio. These are just two very anticompetitive advantages that the public option would have. If I was cynical, I would suggest that these (and a couple other things in the proposed law) were put in to hobble private insurance and get to single payor through the back door. But since I am not, I won't.

[PreCog]

whatever they do they should test it out on ALL govt employees first before unleashing it on the public. that includes congressmen, senators and the POTUS. if it survives the govt employee test run then unleash it on the public. our employees should not get better health care than we get.

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

Are CFLs public option or are they LEDs

[Kurt Ullman]

Yes.