Ro Khanna

@RoKhanna ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Nov. 25, 2020

Created

Fri Dec 13 23:43:14 +0000 2019

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter for iPhone

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Ro Khanna @RoKhanna

@Noahpinion The point is that those proposing a public option aren’t saying zero premium, copay, deductibles. So the cost is relevant because in those plans it would be to consumer. Second, if public option expensive it won’t lead to prices coming down for those on private insurance. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Dec. 13, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Ro Khanna @RoKhanna

@Noahpinion The reason is the costs. The plans proposed don’t have zero premium and deductibles. So if adverse selection, cost to those on public option goes up. Also it won’t drive down costs for others if there is adverse selection. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Dec. 13, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Ro Khanna @RoKhanna

@Noahpinion Third, it won’t lead to a smooth transition to public option if there is adverse selection. Finally, you won’t have same administrative savings, reduction of error, or savings in price if multiparty payer. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Dec. 13, 2019 Hibernated