GOP opposes public plan because it's cheaper

I started to put this as a comment to my post from yesterday on health care.

But this deserves one of its own.

Two Repubicans today are making the nonsence argument that they are opposed to the public plan in health care because it is cheaper.

What they mean is that, because it's cheaper, it will be unfair to the private insurance plans and will tend to drive them out of business. I understand that. But is it really defensible? I don't think so.

Here's Rep. John Kline:

"but our fear is that if you actually get in there looking at the legislation that it’s set up in a way that employers would increasingly opt to letting their employees move over to the public, to the public option. And because it is cheaper, it’s designed to save money, the government-run program has some very clear advantages."

And in the context of what went before, he means that that's why he opposes it.

And then there's my favorite Republican clown, Michele Bachmann, speaking on the House floor:

Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper. This action will collapse the private health insurance market, and then the Federal Government will own the health provider game.

I want to sit these folks down, make them look me in the eye and admit that they would prefer to save the private insurance industry than to provide health care to the American people.

But here's the important point:

They are admitting that the public plan will save money.

They're unknowingly making our point for us. Now if the jerks who pretend to be journalists would just take that and run with it.

Ralph