Messaging: I don't want my tax dollars used...

One of the things I always found most irksome about the anti-choice movement is that their "demands" that their tax dollars not be used for abortions are honored, while other people's desire that their tax dollars not be used to pay for things they find morally repugnant aren't.

I doubt any such protest demanding that my tax dollars not be used to subsidize insurance company profits would be honored, either, but I wonder if making the demand might be useful from a messaging stand point...

In my mind, a mandate without a public option to keep their premiums from going through the roof, is, pure and simple, a transfer of my tax dollars to private insurance company pockets.

I don't mind so much subsidizing the premiums of people who at least have the choice of not adding to insurance companies' profits, because I think that choice will keep the profits from getting excessive. But without a public option, a mandate is simply a license for private insurers to bleed the country dry.

Whaddya think? A useful message or a moran's quest?

We should not force everyone to purchase insurance and then have their only option be the for profit insurance companies who are gouging all of us. There needs to be a strong public option available. One that anyone can buy into and that every doctor and hospital has to accept.

it probably is. Of course people also don't like seeing their tax dollars used to invade a country that poses no threat to us, either, so it's not a new idea.

It appears to me though that no one in congress has been very serious about a public option. Neither the house or the senate has produced a bill with a strong public option. Hr3200 and the HELP bill both have terribly anemic public options that won't do much, and nobody will be able to get into except the few deemed uninsurable by private companies.

The optimists keep saying wait, it will get better, but I'm of the opinion that it will probably get worse. I mean where's the incentive for a real public option when the proponents of the public option act like it's already awesome?

we find morally repugnant, and I doubt this will be different. But how did the anti-choicers get their "demands" honored while the rest of us didn't? How was their demand presented?

My thinking is, they made the case that they considered abortion to be the murder of a human being, which takes it out of the general run of "morally repugnant."

So... should we make the argument that we view insurance company denials for profit to be murder for profit? Many people have, after all, died due to insurance company's denial of their coverage or care.

**edited for punctuation!**

Helping pay for someone else's health insurance so they too can get booted over some pre-existing condition is ridiculous.

After hearing all the horror stories, I realize that I can't count on my health insurance if I get sick. I want a public option that will be there for me if I lose my job or if I'm too sick to work.

Without a public option, I consider this a waste of time and effort.