You had plenty to say regarding our editorial last week on excluding the public option from health care reform.
Brett emailed: "I completely disagree. A national plan such as that enjoyed by Canadians would be well received. The excessive fear-mongering is shameful. Are you being transparent? Following the money always leads to better understanding: who is really served by your editorial?
John-Paul O'Driscoll from Prattville concurred. "The public option would be one of multiple options for health insurance, which will eliminate none of the competition that you claim will disappear. Leaving the system like it is, where current competition offers restrictive insurance policies at exorbitant monthly premiums might benefit you, but not the thousands in Alabama, working and not, who cannot afford them."
Chris Vucovich from Montgomery thanked us though. "Common sense based approaches can help drive down insurance and healthcare costs. For the government to tear apart a system that works, but yet not perfect and replace it with a government system that will be more inefficient, look no further than Medicare, will simply lead to a larger more obtrusive government in our lives."