Latest posts for the topic "Explain government run health insurance plan contract"

Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Tamalak — GMT

I see this contract is very low (20%ish), but the news is full of optimism that a health care bill will pass. Is this discrepancy because: 1. A bill will probably pass but probably not until after Dec 31? 2. A bill will probably pass but it won't include the features that would fulfill the contract? Is a public option necessary to make the contract expire at 100? 3. A bill will probably not pass and the news is full of bs?

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Ethan — GMT

1. I'm confident they'll vote on it this year. It will be a major blow to Obama if they can't get it done by this year. They rather vote a POS than wait and wait. 2. Yes. Public option is necessary to set 100 expiry. 3. The public option however is unlikely The senate finance committee rejected it by 15-8 vote How much money goes toward those 5 democrats who vetoed the bill? 19 million. It is estimated more than 300 millions are going to lobby the senate. I believe they have like thirteen lobbyist for EACH senate. Now if you think about it. This thing is dead UNLESS Americans state a major protest ... rally... sudden movement or something. Which is terribly unlikely.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Intrade — GMT

The market is for the establishment of a government run health insurance plan, otherwise known as the "public option". If such a plan is passed into law before the date on the contract then the contract will expire at 100, if not then it will expire at 0. The contract is not for the passage of a health care reform bill, but only for the creation of a "public option".

Explain government run health insurance plan contract

LongOdds — GMT

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/07/breaking-senate-gop-folding-over-health-care-reform/ I would put PO at about 40. What if it's passed through reconciliation?

Explain government run health insurance plan contract

MoneyMetalBets — GMT

I would not put it anywhere near 40. There is talk of Republicans voting for a public option trigger. But if you look at the rules, this means the contract would expire at 0.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

fartman2 — GMT

The Option - Defined It's pretty clear to me, based on the rules, that the contract envisions what is otherwise known as the robust public option -- variants of which exist in England and Canada. This would involve health care (or insurance) available to all citizens and provided by the federal government, unconditionally. Effect of Senate Idiosyncrasies While it's certainly likely that majorities in the house and senate are in favor of this, the nature of the senate is such that each individual member has extraordinary power to force compromise legislation. Even minor compromise amendments, be it through adding triggers, negotiated health prices (vs. setting prices 5% above medicare rates), etc. can easily weaken the option to the point that it loses much of its key characteristics. Personally, I see this contract as boiling down to whether one believes Harry Reid can get all the center-right and blue dog democrats to agree not only to vote for cloture (i.e. not filibuster), but also do so in exchange for nothing in return (at least as far as health care is concerned). Securing their agreement by allowing amendments to water-down the legislation won't work because it emasculates the robust public option. An Exercise in Statistical Prediction Hypothetically, suppose that he needed to pressure 5 conservative dems to play nice and not filibuster a robust option. Suppose also that any one of those dems has a 75% chance of playing nice (which is awfully optimistic). Presuming he needs all 5 of those votes to break a republican filibuster, the odds of all five playing nice are .75^5=23%. Arguably, he needs more than 5, and each of them are less than 75% likely to play nice by not watering-down the robust option with amendments. Thus, as I see it, the proper value of the contract is quite low. On top of that, realize that at least 40% of the senate is intent on dragging the process on as long as possible. Every deadline set by the senate and/or Obama to date has been missed; Republicans would likely still consider it a minor victory if they kept this thing from passing until 2010, even if a robust option passed then. I suspect that the only reason this contract isn't trading around 10 is because some think the odds of getting a robust option through reconciliation are significant.

Am I the only one who finds the need for frequent re-definitions of this contract problematic?

MC_Pundit — GMT

First, thanks to all for this thread. Fartman2, I agree completely with your assessment that it now appears clear that this contract refers to a "robust public option" providing unconditional federal insurance or care to all U.S. citizens. HOWEVER, that was not at all clear to me when the contract began trading. Nor was it even clear to me, after the first revision of the definition to exclude co-ops, that the "trigger" option would be excluded. Now the contract has been revised a third time to limit its scope. As Senate Democrats continue to weasel their way into a broader definition of "public option", Intrade has now made fairly clear its intention to remove any ambiguities in the contract by narrowing its scope. If they had just told me that up front, then I would have shorted this contract with every penny in my account! Let me be clear that I did read rule 1.7 before purchasing this or any other contract. I'm not posting this to try to weasel my way out of losing a few bucks (which I admit that I have). My concern is that this seems to have illustrated a major potential pitfall in Intrade contracts. Of the many contracts I have followed in the 6 years I've followed Intrade, this is the first I've seen that was so ambiguous that it needed to be redefined every month. Each of these redefinitions has had a substantive, and possibly decisive, effect on the value of the underlying contract. My first concern is that it seems to me that bills in the U.S. Congress are a class of event prone to this problem. It's not just that the contract had to be redefined. It had to be redefined repeatedly based on finer and finer rhetorical hair-splitting. I have trouble imagining that this kind of problem would arise on 95% of Intrade contracts, but is it really a stretch to imaging a similar series of non-obvious contract re-definitions becoming necessary for, say, the "Cap & Trade" contracts? the EFCA contracts? The problem is exacerbated by the lack of detail provided about Rule 1.7. "The Exchange" re-defines the contracts in its sole discretion, of course. If they took a vote among members, some people might be a bit biased. :) Alas, there is no assurance that whomever decides for "the Exchange" themselves lacks bias. Were the 3 re-definitions of this contract prompted by foresight of Intrade employees, or did an Exchange member who owns contracts in this event lobby for a clarification? Considering that Intrade lacked the foresight to clearly define the contract initially (despite the fact that co-ops and the trigger option, at least, were already being discussed), it seems more likely that someone who owns these contracts wanted to know whether or not to sell them. That scenario brings me to my principal complaint, which is that the timing and notification process for contract revisions needs to be improved and spelled out. Although Intrade regularly posts "News" about new contracts, they evidently make no attempt whatsoever to inform anyone, including members who own affected contracts, when they change the definition of existing contracts. Thus someone who happens to check the "Contract-Specific Rules" sooner than another member has a huge advantage. Worse yet, someone who requests and receives a clarifying change in the contract knows in advance to keep an eye out for this. Hmm, maybe I should ask now if It would cost Intrade nothing, and might even slightly increase transaction volume, to announce all revisions to contract definitions in the same way that new contracts are announced. I frankly don't understand why this isn't already done. Does the Exchange not want to bring attention to this ambiguity problem? Sending out notifications of such changes to anyone holding the contracts seems to me to make sense, as well. Ideally, the contact should be temporarily halted until some time after everyone had been notified of the change. That would avoid providing an undue advantage to whomever checked their email first, e.g. because of the time zone they reside in. Although these simple proposed changes would substantially improve the situation, the very existence of this thread provides evidence that this type of contract is inherently more prone to ambiguity than the vast majority of contracts offered on the Exchange. In addition to the above changes, my suggestion would be to avoid such contracts in the future. If one reasonably anticipates that more than one "clarification" will be necessary during the life of a contract, Intrade would be better off not descending into the rhetorical bullshit of, for example, the U.S. Senate, in order to make a few bucks.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

JohnRemington — GMT

There's really no way to guess how a ruling is going to go. It's basically however Carl Wolfenden feels on the day a question is asked. Okay, I can understand the ruling on a co-op, because that would not meet the definition in the original contract of a "US federal government run health plan." Same for a trigger, because in all likelihood the trigger would never be used. But an "Opt Out" plan still wouldn't cause an expiration at 100? It's a health plan run by the federal government. There's no requirement in the initial text of the contract that the plan be available to all states. That was made up out of thin air. Intrade -- remember the Guantanamo closure contract? Remember the -10%.GDP.CUM disaster? And now health care. Every time someone gets an arbitrary ruling against them, it sours them on Intrade. You guys need to fix how contract writing and interpretation works, or you're going to alienate your entire customer base.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

sirjohn — GMT

I agreed with the co-op and trigger contract revisions when they happened, since either of these compromises would mean that a government run health insurance plan had not actually been enacted. But the latest revisions re: opt-out are outrageous. The original wording of the contract never hinted that such a plan would have to be nation-wide. This ruling seems highly arbitrary. Maybe some Intrade official had it in his or her mind that the plan would be national when the contract was designed, but nothing in the actual text of the contract would lead a reasonable trader to believe so. I had been an excited participant in some of the current events and political contracts until now, but having experienced this level of arbitrary and misguided treatment at the hands of Intrade, I think I'll scale back on my trading and stick to real bets with people that I know.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

sirjohn — GMT

Now that I've thought about some of the other ambiguities in public option (PO) contract, I'd like to see Intrade come out with revisions specifying whether the PO would have to be open to all citizens, or only a subset? For instance, would it a PO open only to some (i.e. people meeting certain income requirements, or people who could not otherwise obtain insurance through existing programs or from their employer, or people meeting certain age requirements) vest at 0 or 100? And if the answer is that some eligibility restrictions are acceptable in a PO that vests at 100, then I'd like an explanation for why ineligibility by reason of geographic location is unacceptable, but ineligibility by reason of other demographic traits is perfectly OK.

Explain government run health insurance plan contract

MoneyMetalBets — GMT

FWIW it's my opinion that this contract will expire at 0 unless there is a robust public option. To help add to the thread here though, here is a copy of a recent email I received from Carl Wolfenden in response to a question on the public option: Q: One of the current compromise proposals being discussed would be a national plan that would allow states to opt-out. What is the timeline based on your rules for a state to opt-out. For example...if Obama signs a national public option into law in say...December...but then in January ten states decide to opt-out, what would the expiration be? A: (from Carl Wolfenden) Thanks for your enquiry. We would not consider this to be a government run health care plan on a national scale. If such a plan was established the contract would not expire at 100. I think that Intrade needs to set up an opt-in email list that will send out alerts pertaining to the addition of new contracts and the modification of any existing contract rules.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

JohnRemington — GMT

MMB, Thanks for sharing the email. It's clear that Intrade will have an extremely narrow definition of "public option." It's very very unfortunate that this is absolutely unclear from the original terms of the contract. An opt-out plan would probably result in 35-45 states joining the public option, covering 90%+ of the population. An opt-out public option would certainly fulfill the definition given in the original contract: "This contract will settle (expire) at 100 ($10.00) if a US federal government run health plan (a public option) is approved in the United States before midnight ET on the date specified in the contract. The contract will settle (expire) at 0 ($0.00) if a US federal government run health plan (a public option) is not approved in the United States before midnight ET on the date specified in the contract. A federal government run health plan will be considered approved once legislation establishing the plan has been passed into law. Expiry will be based on the passage of the required legislation into law, as reported by three independent and reliable media sources. This contract covers only the creation of a government run health insurance plan that is an alternative to private health insurance. It does not cover existing health insurance programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, or any changes made to these programs or the cover they provide." Is an opt-out plan a "federal government run plan?" Yes. Is it an "alternative to private health insurance?" Yes. Is it merely a change to Medicare, Medicaid, etc.? No. Is there any requirement in the original rules that the plan be nationwide? No. This ruling needs to be reversed.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

fartman2 — GMT

JohnRemington wrote:

It's clear that Intrade will have an extremely narrow definition of "public option." It's very very unfortunate that this is absolutely unclear from the original terms of the contract.

In defense of Intrade, contracts based on the enactment of conceptual legislation are probably VERY difficult to fully articulate. There will always be ambiguities, unforeseen alternatives that subtly alter the original, political redefinitions of terms, etc. As a general rule of thumb, I think it's pretty appropriate to resolve ambiguities using the understanding of terms and conditions that existed popularly (not in any single individual's mind) at the time the contract sprung into being. In this case, when this contract started, there was no weak public option, triggered public option, opt-in/out public option, or even a "robust public option" designated as such. There was just THE public option popularly understood to be comparable to nationalized health care offered in places like Canada. In that sense, where the contract terms are silent or ambiguous as to a characteristic of this public option insurance, the safest interpretation (apart from seeking clarification from Intrade) would be to assume the legislation refers to what was popularly understood at the time. Intrade's subsequent clarifications have only confirmed that this interpretation is correct. I'm not disputing that the original terms should have been better defined, and that the contract's silence as to other material points ought to have been stated clearly from the start. But that's why one can (and absolutely should) ask for clarification before investing. Intrade can't be expected to foresee all possible developments better than the sum of its investors could. I do believe Intrade IS learning on this front, though. We are still months away from legislation passing. It's good that Intrade is offering clarity to the rule as soon as it becomes clear that clarity is needed rather than AFTER the contract expires. This way, people still have an opportunity to react to unfavorable rulings and cut losses/turn a profit.

JohnRemington wrote:

An opt-out plan would probably result in 35-45 states joining the public option, covering 90%+ of the population.

34-45 state involvement wouldn't fulfill the September 8 revision requiring 100% national involvement. When you ask that the last clarification be reversed, you're effectively suggesting throwing out not just the last rule clarification, but throwing out clarifications that have been in place for over a month.

JohnRemington wrote:

Is there any requirement in the original rules that the plan be nationwide? No.

It's true that there was no explicitly stated requirement. But the original rules don't state that nationwide coverage isn't required, either. There is silence on this issue. Most likely because the popular understanding of the time took for granted the national-character of the option.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

JohnRemington — GMT

I agree it's quite a challenge to deal with all the vagaries of the real world. Intrade can't be expected to see in advance everything that might happen. But they can be expected to make their clarifications fit as closely as possible with the original terms of any contract. They have failed to do that here.

In this case, when this contract started, there was no weak public option, triggered public option, opt-in/out public option, or even a "robust public option" designated as such. There was just THE public option popularly understood to be comparable to nationalized health care offered in places like Canada.

That's factually incorrect. The public option was *never* meant as a Canadian-style single-payer system. It was always styled as a government-run alternative (rather than replacement) to private insurance plans.

where the contract terms are silent or ambiguous as to a characteristic of this public option insurance, the safest interpretation (apart from seeking clarification from Intrade) would be to assume the legislation refers to what was popularly understood at the time.

I disagree. Contract expiration should be based as closely as possible on the letter of the contract. That's what Intrade did in the case of the North Korean missile test contract a few years ago. If you weren't around then, there was a contract on whether North Korea would launch a test missile before a certain date. The contract terms required that the missile launch be confirmed by the US military. North Korea launched a missile, but the US military refused to comment. Intrade expired the contract at 0. I think that was the correct call -- they went by the exact letter of the contract. They should do that here as well. This contract should expire at 100 even if the government plan only covers 50 people. Right or wrong, Intrade made a strong statement with that ruling that they would follow the letter of the contracts, rather than a "common sense" interpretation. Now they're changing that policy to "we'll add whatever terms we feel like." If Intrade ever wants to be taken seriously, and handle more than a few thousand bucks on a bet, they need to fix this.

But that's why one can (and absolutely should) ask for clarification before investing.

I would love to have known Intrade's decision that this must be a national public option before I invested, but they made the clarification after I had a position.

I do believe Intrade IS learning on this front, though. We are still months away from legislation passing.

I wish that were true. This is the third case this year where Intrade has made a questionable ruling. Check out this thread on Guantanamo and the original US Depression contracts, where Intrade made highly questionable rulings. You're right, it's impossible to know what kind of wiggly compromise or unexpected turn of events will come. Which is why Intrade needs to make a strong statement about exactly how they issue clarifications. Here's the thing: The legislation that ultimately gets passed will probably have some new kind of compromise that hasn't been publicly discussed yet. And no one here knows or can even guess how Intrade will rule on it.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

jackwest — GMT

It's annoying, but its not that bad. CUM -10% GDP, now that was interesting. I think it's pretty clear why intrade will never have an update or log of its revisions.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

kard — GMT

I was looking at the contract specific rules for this contract and I noticed that multiple clarifications have been made to specify that various compromise ideas do not count as a public option. Can you offer any kind of generalization of what counts and does not count as a public option, so that people do not have to worry about future "clarifications" affecting prices? Has Intrade even confirmed that the House tri-committee bill (HR 3200) and the Senate HELP Committee bill count as public options?

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Yellowman — GMT

Intrade wrote this response on this Forum on October 7th:

Intrade wrote:

The market is for the establishment of a government run health insurance plan, otherwise known as the "public option". If such a plan is passed into law before the date on the contract then the contract will expire at 100, if not then it will expire at 0. The contract is not for the passage of a health care reform bill, but only for the creation of a "public option".

Two days later, this clarification was posted within the Contract Rules: "If a system is established that allows states to opt-in or opt-out of a government run health care plan the contract will not be expired at 100. (added 09/10/09)." The two statements implicitly contradict each other. According to the first, the contract will expire at 100 if a health reform bill passes which includes a government-run health insurance option. According to the second, the contract "will not be expired at 100" if states are allowed to opt-in or opt-out of the government-run health care plan. The rub is, the following clarification was posted one month before: "For the purposes of this market any public option must be national for the contract to expire at 100. If it was offered in certain states then not others then the contract would not be expired at 100 (added 08/09/09)." So Intrade was forced to make the October 9 clarification in order to remain consistent with their September 8 clarification. Or so I imagine they felt. This seems to me to be a clear case of the clarifications bending the contract so much that a result adhering to the literal definitions of the original contract could -- in fact -- lead to an opposite expiry conclusion. Once more, the original contract rules: "This contract will settle (expire) at 100 ($10.00) if a US federal government run health plan (a public option) is approved in the United States before midnight ET on the date specified in the contract. ... This contract covers only the creation of a government run health insurance plan that is an alternative to private health insurance. It does not cover existing health insurance programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, or any changes made to these programs or the cover they provide." The clarifications since then have done nothing but muddy this contract. A bill such as that proposed by Sen. Carper with a public option and an opt-out clause clearly fits both the spirit and letter of the original contract rules. Would an Intrade employee please describe how I am wrong?

Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Yellowman — GMT

Correction: The opt-in proposal is Senator Carper's. The opt-out proposal is Senator Schumer's.

An Opt Out plan passed is a national plan passed

midwest — GMT

Any opt out plan is a national plan. When it passes on whatever date, states will have to opt out. When it passes it IS a national plan. If it were an opt in plan, that would be a different story. It's 100% certain that when the legislation passes it will include all states in it. A state couldn't opt out until it was passed.

An Opt Out plan passed is a national plan passed

jackwest — GMT

midwest wrote:

Any opt out plan is a national plan. When it passes on whatever date, states will have to opt out. When it passes it IS a national plan. If it were an opt in plan, that would be a different story. It's 100% certain that when the legislation passes it will include all states in it. A state couldn't opt out until it was passed.

Just repeat that enough times to yourself and it will be true.

If a system is established that allows states to opt-in or opt-out of a government run health care plan the contract will not be expired at 100. (added 09/10/09).

You want contract? Good price you buy 5 dollah!

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

mikev3 — GMT

Man, this is bullshit. I bought this and just now saw this extra added bit about how an opt-out isn't technically a public option?? The entire country and the entire media will consider an opt-out public option still a "public option". As the other user said, an opt-out is effectively a 50 state plan only until/unless a state backs out. Hypothetically, no state could back out, and it would be effectively a complete public option identical to one that could expire at 100. YellowMan is COMPLETELY right. The clarification they made ran counter to the original contract definition. An opt out IS STILL a government run health insurance option. Ugh, atleast I only bought this shit at 20 so I won't lose that much selling now. Intrade made the wrong decision here, and I am sure many users will be extremely pissed at them when the opt-out passes and they find out they lost this bet.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

sirjohn — GMT

I think you're right that "users will be pissed" about how subsequent contract revisions contradict the original contract wording. Intrade should be worried about that. But more importantly, think what this does to kill the pundit/media buzz about Intrade. This guy's blog touches on that towards the end: http://jointstock.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/intrade-a-bad-bet/ I think he's right. A big part of Intrade's growth has been driven by elite pundit excitement about how a prediction market could be better at predicting the world than entrenched observers. But what happens to the guy sitting on the fence, wondering whether to go through the hassle of mailing a check to Ireland, when he sees the contradiction of Reid announcing the public option in the senate bill, and the public option price collapsing to below 10 on Intrade? It's enough to scare off marginal market participants.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

WonkoChan — GMT

Can someone please explain why this contract has dropped to 8.1 even though most commentators are now suggesting that a bill with some kind of public option will be passed before the end of this year? Perhaps Intrade will clarify whether an opt-out public option still qualifies?

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

mikev3 — GMT

WonkoChan wrote:

Can someone please explain why this contract has dropped to 8.1 even though most commentators are now suggesting that a bill with some kind of public option will be passed before the end of this year? Perhaps Intrade will clarify whether an opt-out public option still qualifies?

They already did [read the posts right above this]. Intrade specifically added the following clarification to the contract

intrade wrote:

If a system is established that allows states to opt-in or opt-out of a government run health care plan the contract will not be expired at 100. (added 09/10/09).

I think its BS, but that's the rule so i'd get out of this contract ASAP, because it is pretty much agreed that a 50 state public option will not pass.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

WonkoChan — GMT

Dear Mikev3, I have just taken your advice and closed out my contracts at 8.0. I have worn a loss from an average buy in of 21. I can afford it but Intrade has left a very bad taste in my mouth from this one.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

LongOdds — GMT

This is apparently not the first time Intrade has royally screwed the pooch with some arcane clause hidden in the contract. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrade#Disputes "In July, 2006, Tradesports conceded [7] that one of these contracts was problematic. The contract offered traders to speculate on whether North Korea would, by July 31, 2006, successfully fire ballistic missiles that would land outside its airspace. This appeared to take place on July 5, 2006: the North Korean government claimed the test was successful, and it was widely reported by world media. Some traders had argued that the event did in fact occur, but Tradesports disputed this position, noting that while many government sources had confirmed the action, the US Department of Defense had not, which was the condition noted in the contract. Traders considered this a disingenuous response, noting that Tradesports had chosen a US military source which might well be biased to refuse any comment as a matter of policy alone."

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Arcsol — GMT

Look, the people who bet on the public option without reading the contract have no one to blame but themselves. I read every contract before I trade it. The only people that are blameless are those who owned the public option contracts and the contract was changed after they had bought the contract.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

mikev3 — GMT

Arcsol wrote:

Look, the people who bet on the public option without reading the contract have no one to blame but themselves. I read every contract before I trade it. The only people that are blameless are those who owned the public option contracts and the contract was changed after they had bought the contract.

I agree, I should have read the contract, it is my fault. That said, Intrade clearly made the wrong decision with their clarification.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Arcsol — GMT

mikev3 wrote:

Arcsol wrote:

Look, the people who bet on the public option without reading the contract have no one to blame but themselves. I read every contract before I trade it. The only people that are blameless are those who owned the public option contracts and the contract was changed after they had bought the contract.
I agree, I should have read the contract, it is my fault. That said, Intrade clearly made the wrong decision with their clarification.

I didn't like the clarification either. I was puzzled when I saw it and it made me stay even further away from the contract.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Panner — GMT

It's too bad they made a bad decision, but this is one of the bigger risks of prediction markets. No matter how good they get at contract wording, there will always be border cases that could go either way, unintuitive outcomes, and bald mistakes. I believe some sort of clarification was required in order to excluding a health care for a single small region (eg, creating a public health care option for Washington DC residents exclusively). But I see no reason an "opt-out" plan could have been viewed as this sort of thing. If it really was a tough borderline case (in this case, it should have been), they should have put this up for comment rather than just make a unilateral decision. Sure, a lot of people would put forth arguments that favor their stake and there'd be a lot of flaming. So what? Intrade would be looking for the best arguments for each side and this an effective way to get them. Plus, it'd warn everyone that there was a source of uncertainty in the market and to watch their fingers and toes.

Re:Explain government run health insurance plan contract

Yatata — GMT

Does the bill that passed in the house yesterday count as a step toward the ratification of a public option? The news outlets are saying yes, and yet the Intrade stock is at an all time low. If reputable news sources are using the term "public option" in their language when reporting on the bill that passed yesterday, can Intrade please explain how they are going to respond to investors if the bill passes the senate, and is ratified by the president, yet the contract expires at 0. If it wasn't a Public Option that passed in the house yesterday, then what was it?

Explain government run health insurance plan contract

MoneyMetalBets — GMT

Read all the posts in this thread and you'll find your answer.