That would be a reasonable question since they seem to be possessed with irrational fears. According to the NYT, Senator John Ensign said that he voted against a public plan because it will eventually take over the insurance market: "Once it’s started, you will never get rid of it. Congress will subsidize it more and more, allow it to grow and grow.”
There is no precedent for Congress providing the enormous subsides that would be needed to allow a bad public plan to displace better private insurance plans. This would almost certainly run into hundreds of billions a year or multiple trillions over a 10-year horizon. This means that Mr. Ensign either is concerned that the public plan will actually be a good plan or he alternatively he fears an event that is about as likely as invasion from Mars. The NYT could have made this point more clearly.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
