That's the percentage of folks who will be covered by the public option being touted in Congress. At the $1,200,000,000,000.00 price tag, I'm glad those two-percenter's are getting coverage.
Good job government.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not scolding the government because I believe more individuals should have fallen under the public option. I'm finding it amazing that they've managed to bungle yet again with their most pet of pet-projects.
I was going to post this in the other thread but since you did a separate post I'll comment here.
ReplyDeleteOne person quoted in the article you quoted is correct in saying that the public option has clouded the debate. It will not have the sweeping effect liberals hope and it wont result in the government takeover conservatives fear.
First of all, only those who don't get coverage from their employers would be even eligible to enroll in it. For those who don't get coverage through our employers, like you and I, it will be one option on an exchange that we can use to compare different insurance plans and prices. The vast majority of those, in fact all but the public option, will be private insurance. The point of the public option is not to get everyone to take part of it, and I'm actually not dogmatic about the public option being included, but I want some mechanism in place to ensure premiums are affordable. That's why I don't oppose lifting the anti-trust exemption.
But I understand perfectly well why the Dems are tackling it now, and I don't see it as cynical. The cynical thing would be to avoid it because it's controversial and could hurt them at the polls.