Snapped Shot

Blitzer said, "The cooperative option, a series of health insurance cooperatives that wouldn't be the public option, but would be something in between? Is he going to get into a detail like that and say he likes that idea?"

AXELROD: He will acknowledge the fact that there is that idea. There's the idea of putting a trigger on the public option so it goes into effect at some date when it's clear that the -- that a market is uncompetitive. There are a number of ideas, but what is very important is that we have the kind of competition and choice that will help consumers.

Blitzer says, "Why not break down these state barriers and let all these insurance companies compete nationally without having to simply focus in on a state by state basis?"

AXELROD: Because we are trying to do this in a way that advances the interests of consumers without creating such disruption that it makes it difficult to --

BLITZER: Why would that be disruptive if Blue Cross and Blue Shield or United Health Care or all these big insurance companies, they don't have to worry about just working in a state, they could just have the opportunity to compete in all 50 states.

AXELROD: But insurance is regulated at this time --

BLITZER: But you could change that --

AXELROD: State by state.

BLITZER: The president could propose a law changing that.

AXELROD: That is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we are proposing or that --

BLITZER: Why not, why not?

AXELROD: We're proposing a package that we believe will bring that stability and security to people, will help people get insurance, and will lower the cost impact and pass the Congress. And that has to be the test. We're not into symbolic expedition here.

Like I said, while most critics are focusing on calling Axelrod a liar for claiming that opening up the borders for insurance companies would not increase competition and reduce costs. However, he did admit that Obama is only focused on doing something that will pass Congress. And, of course, it is not within the right reform proposals.

Why increase competition when your whole focus is to eliminate it?

But what I would like to focus on is the theory behind the public option versus this topic: Allowing people to seek services from out-of-state insurance carriers.

Think about this. The ObamaCare has as its basis a push to establish a government-run not-for-profit option to compete with all of the for-profit insurance carriers out there. This administration has already stated that it is against opening up the borders for insurance carriers. Put the two together now.

If they are not going to open up the ability of insurance companies to operate nationally, then that will force ObamaCare to create 50 different "options." They will not be able to create a single NATIONAL "public" option. That of course, would be illegal and would go against the "kind of reform" that they are trying to implement.

So, tell me. How expensive do you think this deficit-neutral (cough, cough) plan will be now that you know they will have to create up to 50 seperate ObamaCare plans?

Oh, and you will be forced to buy in to one plan or another. You will have to purchase one of his plans or a private plan that will be forced to offer the same coverage as the ObamaPlan. If you choose to save your money and not purchase coverage you will be fined and/or jailed. But then, of course, that is not a tax.