On Meet the Press this morning, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said:
[The public option] doesn't have to make a profit or merchandise as much, so its costs are probably 20 percent lower. But then, on a level playing field, it competes with private insurance.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 23, 2009 08:50 AM | Email ThisWhat kind of crazy person would believe that would happen? Every Democrat scheme from Social Security, to Medicare, to public education is constantly under water and in need of increased funding.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 10:26 AMThat is exactly the nail to hit! I've asked all the leftists here - and those on other forums and in person - how nationalizing health insurance will reduce the expenditures of the Federal Government.
All that comes back is silence and blank stares.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 23, 2009 10:43 AM"The Obama Administration - Leadership in a vacuum"
Posted by: KDS on August 23, 2009 12:51 PMI can't wait to see who they pull in to help me with my health care. Maybe postal clerks.
I asked her the following question:
"Do you really believe that we can add 45 million people - including hundreds of thousands of heroin users, methheads, chronic drunks,etc. as well as all the young people who swap STD's like email- and cover the whole cost by replacing private insurance company bureaucrats with public employees union bureaucrats?"
She called me an un-printable word and walked out of the house telling me she never wanted to see me again. (Which I consider a bit of a bonus.)
Isn't it amazing how the same hippies and idiots that haven't trusted the U.S. government since the 60's now can't believe that anyone would ever say anything bad about it?
Posted by: johnny on August 23, 2009 01:39 PMYou bring up a great point that I've pondered a lot. How is it that 1960's hippies who "just wanted to be free and stuff" morphed into these mean, nasty controllers who enjoy nothing more than telling the rest of us how to live? I saw it coming back then when communists and socialists began appearing at war protests. I think that explains a lot of it.
I was on the left back then. All my friends from those days still are and most of them won't talk to me anymore. As you say Johnny, that might be something of a bonus!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 03:53 PMWell, this ultra-liberal Chambers had some friends there. One was an older man, in his 60s or maybe 70s. When someone spoke to Larsen and was critical of the idea of gov't health care ... here was this dignified-looking man who flipped the guy the bird just for expressing a view he didn't like.
Real nice.
Yesterday we were walking along the Northgate parking lot when a leftist came towards us in his car and said, "you'll need healthcare if I run you over". They're just charming people, aren't they?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 04:51 PMMr. Shanghai, no one says it will reduce government expenditures; it would raise them. It would shift lots of health expenditures from the private sector to the government, and that would raise government expenditures, quite a lot!
Isn't that obvious?
The point that is often made is it would reduce our nation's total expenditures on health care, because, looking around the world, the single payer nations pay 7-10% of gdp on health cre, with better outcomes, and we pay 16%.
Now why is that so?
1. elimination of profit waste paperwork excessive salaries in insurers....their business is cherrypicking, then denying claims, then throwing people off of coverage....
they spend a lot on those activities which produce no social value. They spend a lot higgling over every claim, excluding people, assessing preexisting conditions, and in general, doing what insurers do, which is make a profit through underwriting.
Their overhead and profit is 30% whereas medicare has 4% for overhead.
So that's the main saving.
2. greater barganing power in setting rates with one buyer. it's not a free market anyway, for many reasons, and the rates charged for many things are monopoly or oligopoly rates.
3. because they have government paid heatlh care, the single payer nations have fewer lawsuits over medical decisions, because you can't sue for the medical costs as part of your damages.....in effect, they, the socialized system, have achieved a "tort reform" that conservatives say they want.
4. I believe their systems don't overtreat the ways our do, we even have doctors who own scanning services and who routinely refer people for scans and unneeded tests, to make a profit.
The article in the Atlantic on the little town in Texas explained all that. I think they're less pressure on doctors in Europe to earn $800K a year, btw, for many reasons including (a) not having the big loans our doctors have, remember in the commynistic nations of sweden and france they pay for your schooling, (b) there is a social norm over there that professionals are more professional, not just profit maximizers, and (c) because of the government buyer, their rates are limited.
5. Because everyone's covered there isn't the expensive socialized cost of treating everyone via the emergency room. Because everyone's covered they do much better on prevention and catching things early, resulting in less treatment being needed, less sickness, and better health. Prevention and treatment are often cheaper when a disease is caught early.
6. I would imagine that the general system fo the bigger safety net also means greater heatlh because people have more money and less stress in general.
7. It's also cheaper over there because they don't have the huge number of medical bankruptcies we have. In our nation, you are paying higher rates on every drecit card because many people default on their credit cards when they go banktrupt over medical bills....every creditor absorbs those losses....this isn't showing up on the books in the way you're talking about, but it's cheaper over there because in general people just keep their little economic ship afloat, whereas here, lots of folks go under and create all kinds of other social costs.
Ok, thanks for asking, Mr. Shanghai. That's just for starters. Now I ask you:
why is it that there is no nation in the world that is a democracy that wants to eliminate their single payer system and move to our system?
Why is it that none of them doing it, being democracies with conservative parties that stand for election and often win election?
if the nationalized system is so awful, why is the head of the conservative party in britain saying the cosnervatives are the party of the nhs?
is he a deluded leftist, MR. Shanghai?
why is it that their systems cost less and show reduced costs?
Btw, the name calling and vitriolic type response isn't being asked for here. You're free to call names and rant about liberals, but I'm not really askinf for that. I'm asking you to put your information and beliefs on the table in a civil dialogue.
(btw, did you come up with a conservative position on what to do about medicare's nonsustainable cost curve, btw? Hope I didn't miss that. Seems to me the clear and simple conservative answer would be "end the program, we think people should have a personal responsibility to save up for their own medical care costs in old age, and if they fail to do so, tough shit, the government shouldn't pay for them and no one else should, so they should die begging in pain at the hospital door." I mean, until you tell me what the real conservative position is, that's all I can figure out from what you say your principles are.)
Thank you in advance for your substantive and civil response.
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on August 23, 2009 05:56 PMIt won't.
the single payer nations ...
... are not the United States of America and any such comparison is facially invalid.
why is it that there is no nation in the world that is a democracy that wants to eliminate their single payer system and move to our system?
Almost all of those same nations make "hate" speech illegal. The people of the United States believe that is wrong. Yet, those nations do not want to eliminate their anti-free-speech laws. Does that mean they are right and we are wrong? Of course not.
So please stop pretending that you can discover whether something is good or bad through such nonsensical comparisons. We are not them.
why is it that their systems cost less and show reduced costs?
They don't, in fact. The NHS costs a lot more than Britain spent before the NHS, and because of its many deficiencies, they are planning on spending even more.
did you come up with a conservative position on what to do about medicare's nonsustainable cost curve, btw?
Sure: eliminate it. Since it is unconstitutional and unsustainable, might as well just kill it. Of course, it would have to be over time: despite the fact that it's an illegal and ill-conceived program, millions of people depend on it, so you can't pull it out from under them. It will take several decades to eliminate it, so we should start now.
"... we think people should have a personal responsibility to save up for their own medical care costs in old age, and if they fail to do so, tough shit, the government shouldn't pay for them and no one else should, so they should die begging in pain at the hospital door."
You obviously know almost nothing about conservatives. Yes, obviously, people should take responsibility to care for themselves in old age: even Obama would agree with that. Conservatives, of course, believe government should not pick up the slack if they don't, but the rest of what you said is completely false. Not a single conservative thinks that. You really are clueless.
I mean, until you tell me what the real conservative position is, that's all I can figure out from what you say your principles are.
Except that his principles, as expressed, are nothing like what you said. Do you practice at being so stupid? Is it a lot of work?
Mr. Shanghai, no one says it will reduce government expenditures; it would raise them. It would shift lots of health expenditures from the private sector to the government, and that would raise government expenditures, quite a lot!
Isn't that obvious?
For most people, yes, quite obvious. And the problems inherent with that are also quite obvious! Deficit spending by the Government is a Very Bad Thing, especially at the levels it is going at now (and will continue at for the foreseeable future according to the President).
The point that is often made is it would reduce our nation's total expenditures on health care, because, looking around the world, the single payer nations pay 7-10% of gdp on health cre, with better outcomes, and we pay 16%.
So? If the spending is in the private sector, it's growing the total GDP rather nicely! Consider the financial sector; 50 years ago, it was barely 1% of the GDP. Now it's around 15%. Is that a bad thing?
New industries and fields will peak at different times in terms of dominating the GDP. If it's the market that does it, that's fine. If it's the Government, then it's being forced, and being forced with higher inefficiencies.
Their overhead and profit is 30% whereas medicare has 4% for overhead.
One lie and one distortion here. The lie is about costs; when you actually balance out the way overhead is calculated, you'll find that Medicare costs more per person than private insurance. It's lost money doing it through Government.
The distortion? Profits are "gone". No, they go into the economy. They pay salaries of people to buy cars. They fund retirement investments and provide dividends for gains.
Profits are not evil; would you like your company to have zero profit, and lose its ability to pay you, or its investors?
greater barganing power in setting rates with one buyer
So far, that's not seen. The proposed HR 3200 will cost between $400 and $800 per month per person. That's quite a bit higher than what you can get on the private market!
Additionally, it reduces choice. Some people may need expensive plans because of their situation; many can get buy with very low cost plans. When you peanut-butter the plans across huge numbers of people you either waste a LOT of money with the high-end plan needed by a small percentage of those covered, or you fail to meet the needs of that small percentage.
It's the same problem with national minimum-wage laws; they do not consider the cost of living. Making $9 per hour in Colville is OK; making $9 per hour in Mercer Island is not. Making $9 per hour in many places is an OK wage; in Manhattan or San Francisco it is not.
A broad-coverage plan simply is a waste of money or a restriction of coverage, by definition.
the single payer nations have fewer lawsuits over medical decisions, because you can't sue for the medical costs as part of your damages.....in effect, they, the socialized system, have achieved a "tort reform" that conservatives say they want.
Why not just pass tort reform in the first place, without the need to nationalize insurance?
I believe their systems don't overtreat the ways our do, we even have doctors who own scanning services and who routinely refer people for scans and unneeded tests, to make a profit.
Proof, please? I hear this stated a lot, but no one can ever back it up with facts. I know doctors will recommend tests for defensive purposes (see tort reform), but for profit? Have yet to see that proven.
Because everyone's covered there isn't the expensive socialized cost of treating everyone via the emergency room.
So because they have insurance, they will take care of themselves? What about the tens of millions who are already covered by Medicaid or S-CHIP and simply refuse to take part? Or the millions who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to because they think they don't need it?
How will the nationalized plan solve these situations? People already have coverage and don't use it... Are you going to mandate annual physicals?
I would imagine that the general system fo the bigger safety net also means greater heatlh because people have more money and less stress in general.
Pure speculation without basis in fact.
It's also cheaper over there because they don't have the huge number of medical bankruptcies we have.
How does forcing people to buy insurance change that? Medicare and Medicaid does not cover all costs and people go bankrupt when covered on those plans. Unless you propose that HR 3200 has other safeguards in place? Just what does HR 3200 mandate as coverage?
why is it that there is no nation in the world that is a democracy that wants to eliminate their single payer system and move to our system?
Talk to the Canadian Medical Association. They want to move to a system that integrates private coverage.
Why is it that none of them doing it, being democracies with conservative parties that stand for election and often win election?
For the same reason that George Bush gave up trying to reform Social Security and Medicare: politics. The opposition doesn't care about the actual reformation of policy, just scaring people and forcing a political turnover.
why is it that their systems cost less and show reduced costs?
They don't. In fact, in your opening statement you admitted that nationalizing health care will INCREASE the costs to the Government.
I mean, until you tell me what the real conservative position is, that's all I can figure out from what you say your principles are.
You seem to have already decided what they are. So can I decide what the liberal principles are?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 23, 2009 07:16 PMIf government's costs in offering health insurance are really 20% lower than private insurance, that's a good thing, right? That sounds to me like I would be able to get insurance at a lower rate from the government -- what's not to like about that?
I hear that private industry is supposed to be more efficient than government, so they ought to be able to offer a product that's at least as attractive. If they can't -- who cares?
Pudge, explain to me why I shouldn't support a public option. If it actually provides a more attractive option than private insurance, why wouldn't I want that? And if private industry can really do it better, then the public option is really irrelevant because no one will choose it.
If government's costs in offering health insurance are really 20% lower than private insurance, that's a good thing, right? That sounds to me like I would be able to get insurance at a lower rate from the government -- what's not to like about that?
I hear that private industry is supposed to be more efficient than government, so they ought to be able to offer a product that's at least as attractive. If they can't -- who cares?
Pudge, explain to me why I shouldn't support a public option. If it actually provides a more attractive option than private insurance, why wouldn't I want that? And if private industry can really do it better, then the public option is really irrelevant because no one will choose it.
He meant that it is a level playing field. But it cannot be. It's inherently levelled against the private companies and in favor of the government plan.
If government's costs in offering health insurance are really 20% lower than private insurance, that's a good thing, right?
Wrong.
That sounds to me like I would be able to get insurance at a lower rate from the government -- what's not to like about that?
Um. The fact that it hurts private businesses? The government has no right to do that. What if you owned a coffee shop, and the government put in a government-owned coffee shop next to yours, with lower costs (doesn't have to pay taxes, for example), and undercut your prices and drove you out of business?
Pudge, explain to me why I shouldn't support a public option.
It's illegal. Read the Tenth Amendment.
If it actually provides a more attractive option than private insurance, why wouldn't I want that?
Because you love liberty and respect the Constitution.
Do we really want the same government unions that run our highly inefficient government agencies suddenly negotiating salaries for our doctors and nurses?
I know. I know. "It's not in the bill that the health workers would join the government employees unions," but these guys take over anything they want in government because they are so powerful they can't be stopped.
Example: Look what they did from practically day one of the Department of Homeland Security - and that was when republicans were in charge of the house, senate and executive branch and George Bush was literally standing on the crumbled remains of the twin towers as his bully pulpit.
We already have a shortage of doctors in this country. Is that really going to get better when they are limited to a 35 hour work week? Do you want a government worker operating on you? Seriously? (I don't think I do.)
Will federal government unions make healthcare better? There's strong evidence to show that unions with too much unchecked power destroy everything they touch.
Examples in private industry include: the domestic automotive industry, electronics industry, domestic airlines.
Examples in government: Government.
Now, reading back the above, I make it sound like I don't respect unions, but I do think they have a place. Southeast Asia.
As a suggestion, maybe instead of complaining all the time that Asian sweatshops are taking our jobs, and bitching and complaining that people shop at Walmart, maybe they could go organize sweatshops in southeast Asia?
Posted by: johnny on August 23, 2009 11:06 PMWrong.
Well, that's your opinion -- but it sounds like a good thing to me. Maybe lots of other people, too.
That sounds to me like I would be able to get insurance at a lower rate from the government -- what's not to like about that?
Um. The fact that it hurts private businesses? The government has no right to do that.
Really? What makes you say that? Government hurts private businesses all the time by imposing safety and environmental standards, labor laws, etc. You might not like that, but there doesn't seem to be any absolute prohibition against government hurting private businesses. In fact, I'm not sure there is any prohibition at all -- maybe you could enlighten me on this.
Normally, I would agree that government should try to avoid harming private business, if it can. But in this case, I would say private business is harming itself by providing such a crappy product that many are asking their government to provide an alternative for relief. If government can do this better than private business -- that's fine with me. If it can't -- then I guess most of us will just stick with the product offered by private business.
Pudge, explain to me why I shouldn't support a public option.
It's illegal. Read the Tenth Amendment.
If the Supreme Court agrees with you, then you have nothing to worry about. If it doesn't, then you're just wrong.
If it actually provides a more attractive option than private insurance, why wouldn't I want that?
Because you love liberty and respect the Constitution.
I love liberty and respect the Constitution just as much as you do. I just don't think my liberty is compromised if I choose to purchase health insurance from the government any more than it is if I mail letters through the Post Office instead of FedEx.
It's a false premise. Government costs are HIGHER; I've linked to resources showing the case time and again. This is, simply put, a lie.
Additionally, when is it good for Government to increase its own deficit spending? HR 3200 will balloon the deficit! That little fact is always conveniently left out of the "it's cheaper" claim as well. Borrowing money to pay for health insurance is an expensive route to go.
Why should Government take on the spending? Right now and historically, Government expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid - per person - grow faster than private insurance costs. Why do we want to take a private-private transaction and place it on the backs of the Government at a higher rate?
Pudge covered the basic constitutional issues; from a purely financial standpoint this is a higher cost solution. Please explain how nationalizing health insurance will reduce the absolute dollars the Government spends. You can't, because it won't.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 24, 2009 06:48 AMIf government's costs in offering health insurance are really 20% lower than private insurance, that's a good thing, right? That sounds to me like I would be able to get insurance at a lower rate from the government -- what's not to like about that?
All things being equal, of course you would like that, but there is a big difference between what you pay and what something costs. This has been addressed time and time again.
If government chooses to pay doctors less than what they bill, it might be true that the savings is passed on to you. As you say, "what's not to like about that?" Well, what's not to like is that doctors might not find the payments sufficient for THEIR costs. You get a bargain, they go out of business. What the government does is distort the market.
There are also hidden costs you might not consider. Private business pay taxes, government does not. So you might say "so what? I get it cheaper that way." Well, No. You don't. The taxes are still a part of the cost of care, but they are shifted. All insurance policies that the government provide take away the taxes from the insurance policies that the private insurance agencies would have paid had they sold the policy. That lost tax revenue is a cost, but it is not applied to the government insurance program, which distorts the true cost.
Quite simply, it is not enough to compare your "out of pocket" costs for an insurance policy when determining if the government plan is in fact cheaper. If the government distorts the cost of the service provided and distorts the cost of running their operation, then you cannot simply compare the cost of the policy.
So, while it is fair to say that ANY competitor, whether it is one company or another or a government agency that is providing a comparable product at a cheaper price, is good for the consumer, you cannot simply equate the government program as a "comparable product". Thus, Shcumer is wrong to say it is a "level" playing field.
So, unless the government is unable to use tax revenues to support it's "insurance" business, has to pay the same tax rates as all other insurance businesses, and is unable to use force to compel providers to accept lower payments (something that would land other insurance company's executives in prison), you do not have a level playing field. And IF the government had to do all these things, they what would the difference be between it and private insurance companies now? Nothing would have changed.
Posted by: Eyago on August 24, 2009 07:21 AMRight, because you're selfish and you don't care much for liberty. You're perfectly willing to take from other people to get what YOU want, and damn them and their businesses and property and livelihood.
What makes you say that?
The Constitution.
... there doesn't seem to be any absolute prohibition against government hurting private businesses.
Only if the WAY in which they are hurting private business is in the Constitution. If your private business is in making postal roads or running private armies, then the federal government has explicit authority to "compete" with you. There is nothing in the Constitution, expressed or implied, allowing them to compete with health insurance companies.
The prohibition, therefore, is in the Tenth Amendment.
Normally, I would agree that government should try to avoid harming private business, if it can. But in this case, I would say private business is harming itself ...
The Tenth Amendment has no "unless you are harming yourself" exemption. It is absolute: if the power is not granted by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution, the power DOES NOT belong to the federal government.
If [the Supreme Court] doesn't [agree with you], then you're just wrong.
Nonsense. Constitutionality is defined by what the Constitution says, not what the Court has to say about it. (And a liberal Supreme Court justice himself said this -- Justice Felix Frankfurter, an FDR nominee, whom I disagree with often in my reading of decisions of the time -- so it's not like I am making this idea up. Probably every Supreme Court Justice of every persuastion would agree with me here, because it's a fundamental American principle.)
And there are many reasons why a Court may not rule against a law, even if it is unconstitutional: it doesn't let the Congress or President off the hook, as they are obligated to follow the Constitution, and not act merely in absence of the Court saying they can't.
I love liberty and respect the Constitution just as much as you do.
Perhaps, but you certainly don't prioritize it as I do. You put your desires ahead of liberty and the Constitution.
I just don't think my liberty is compromised if I choose to purchase health insurance from the government ...
Exactly ... like I said, you're selfish. You only think of how it affects YOUR liberty, not the liberty of the people at the companies which are being harmed by the government, let alone the taxpayers who are footing much of the bill for this government health insurance company.
... any more than it is if I mail letters through the Post Office instead of FedEx.
Except the Post Office came before FedEx, and more importantly, the power to establish Post Offices is explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution. Where is the power to establish and run health insurance companies?
I love liberty and respect the Constitution just as much as you do.
Perhaps, but you certainly don't prioritize it as I do. You put your desires ahead of liberty and the Constitution.
You're wrong on that. You can avoid these mistakes in the future if you drop the mind-reading act.
You only think of how it affects YOUR liberty, not the liberty of the people at the companies which are being harmed by the government...
Once again, your mind-reading skills have failed you. I do think about those things, I just come to different conclusions than you.
...let alone the taxpayers who are footing much of the bill for this government health insurance company.
I thought the ratepayers who would choose a public option were footing the bill.
Except the Post Office came before FedEx
Yes, it did. And yet, somehow, FedEx managed to succeed in the face of government competition. They did it by offering a product that people wanted at a price they would pay. Private health insurance companies will have a chance to succeed in the same way against a public option.
Posted by: scottd on August 24, 2009 12:30 PMI know. You disagree because it is something you want, instead of thorough objective analysis of what the Constitution actually says. I defy you to show how the Constitution allows a public option; you can't do it. No one can.
So how shall we resolve this if a public option comes to pass?
Since the Court is unlikely to overturn it even if they believe it is unconstitutional -- as it tends to defer to the Congress even when it shouldn't, on such issues -- we'll try that option, but we won't believe we'll get very far. We'll also work to toss the tyrannical bums out of office, to limit any passed plan, and to overturn it.
Unfortunately our republic does not do a great job of acting like one, by respecting the most fundamental part of being a republic: protecting the people from the tyranny of the state. Social Security is a great example of this.
You're free to hold whatever abstract ideals you like, but as a practical matter ...
As a practical matter, I will fight for the Constitution, because that is the path to liberty and justice.
You're wrong on that.
No, I am not. If you valued liberty more than you valued satisfying your desire for the public option, you would be against the public option. There's no two ways about it. I am not reading your mind, I am going by what you said, and it is necessarily true. In regards to government, value the rights to life, liberty, and property above all; you do not. I accept the words of the Declaration of Independence that this is the reason government exists, to protect those rights; you do not. You believe it is more important that government "take care" of people's "needs."
You might care a lot about liberty ... but you care about your selfish desires to force me to help other people more than you care about my liberty.
I thought the ratepayers who would choose a public option were footing the bill.
You were wrong. Ultimately eventually it might be paid for solely by the ratepayers, but the initial investment of many billions to get it off the ground is all taxpayer dollars, and that won't be paid back any time soon.
Yes, it did. And yet, somehow, FedEx managed to succeed in the face of government competition.
Ummmmm. So? I never said private businesses cannot succeed against govt competition. Never implied it in any way. I only stated the FACT that it is not a level playing field, but one thing that FedEx had going for it is that it came later and was able to exploit market segments the USPS wasn't serving, while in this case, the government is the one doing that exploiting, and worse, further regulating what services, prices, and even profits, the private businesses can have. None of that happened with USPS and FedEx.
And of course, you completely skipped the main point, which is that the Constitution explicitly says the government can make post offices, which is a pretty big difference.
Private health insurance companies will have a chance to succeed in the same way against a public option.
Nope. Even Schumer says you're out to lunch on that, in the quote I gave: the Post Office does need to do a lot of marketing to survive, whereas the public option won't have to. Right off the bat that's a huge competitive advantage for the public option.
Wrong again. I disagree because I don't think it's unconstitutional. I think I said as much -- more failed mind-reading from you.
We'll also work to toss the tyrannical bums out of office, to limit any passed plan, and to overturn it.
Now, there's the spirit! And good luck with that -- I really mean it.
Unfortunately our republic does not do a great job of acting like one
Sorry you feel that way -- but you're just going to have to suck it up. Maybe write a few blog rants if it makes you feel better.
I think our republic works about as well as can be expected. I don't always agree with the government, but there's a always another election and a chance to throw the bums out. You're just down because your bums haven't been winning lately. Maybe they'll be more successful if they give the people what they want instead of the insane rhetoric they're spewing now.
by respecting the most fundamental part of being a republic: protecting the people from the tyranny of the state. Social Security is a great example of this.
I'm sure I can count on you to keep fighting the evil of Social Security. I only ask that you encourage more members of the Republican Party to run on that platform.
You're wrong on that.
No, I am not.
Yes you are -- so there :-P
If you valued liberty more than you valued satisfying your desire for the public option, you would be against the public option. There's no two ways about it.
The empirical evidence is against you, pudge. I do value liberty more than my desire for a public option. I just don't see a conflict between the two. You obviously disagree.
but you care about your selfish desires to force me to help other people more than you care about my liberty.
I don't think I've said anything about forcing you to help other people.
Even Schumer says you're out to lunch on that
No, he didn't. Schumer said a public option would have no marketing costs and lower admin costs. I said private industry would be able to succeed if it could offer a product that people wanted at a price they would pay. Schumer's statement does not refute what I said.
I don't deny that a government sponsored public option would have some competitive advantages over private industry. But, I've also heard that private industry has some advantages, too. I've heard that private industry is supposed to be more innovative and more efficient than government. If that's true, maybe private industry will be able to offer a better product than the public option. Or maybe not.
I think that's one of the differences between us. In my mind, if government can provide a public service more efficiently than private industry, then good for us! On the other hand, if they can't, then I suppose people will freely pick the private options instead.
I don't have anything against government serving the people.
You do it backward. You don't think it is unconstitutional because it is something you want. You fool yourself into thinking it is constitutional because you want it.
you're just going to have to suck it up
False.
I don't always agree with the government, but there's a always another election and a chance to throw the bums out.
That is democracy. I am talking about a republic. Do you know what a republic is? A republic is what protects us EVEN WHEN "bums" get elected. A republic is what says we have free speech and a right to bear arms even if the politicians try to take it away, or that the federal government has no right to tell us we have to have health insurance, or that if we do want it, we have to go through government or our jobs to get it.
I'm sure I can count on you to keep fighting the evil of Social Security. I only ask that you encourage more members of the Republican Party to run on that platform.
Shrug. I would gladly run on that. My platform would not bother the elderly, because it calls for phasing it out AFTER them, so they get theirs. And it appeals to young people who don't expect to get it anyway.
The empirical evidence is against you, pudge. I do value liberty more than my desire for a public option. I just don't see a conflict between the two.
Yes, because you're fooling yourself. The conflict is impossible to ignore unless you blind yourself to it. The public option, undeniably, harms private businesses by undermining their market positions. It, undeniably, harms taxpayers by taking their money to pay for it. It, undeniably, harms consumers by giving them fewer choices (as other smaller options will be pushed out of business).
There's no conceivable way to look at this as not conflicting with liberty.
I don't think I've said anything about forcing you to help other people.
Um, yes, you said were for the public option, which I am being required to pay for.
No, he didn't. Schumer said a public option would have no marketing costs and lower admin costs.
Right, and the USPS does have marketing costs. So, it's not the same. You said it was the same. ... It's not.
I've heard that private industry is supposed to be more innovative and more efficient than government. If that's true, maybe private industry will be able to offer a better product than the public option.
Yes, except that -- again, UNLIKE FedEx -- these insurers will have to innovate within very strict new rules set up by the government, which is pushing its own plan.
This is not like USPS vs. FedEx. This is like if you own a Starbucks franchise, and the government puts in a coffee shop next to yours, and then says you have to sell the same beans they do, for the same price, and limit the amount of profits you can take in.
In my mind, if government can provide a public service more efficiently than private industry, then good for us!
Exactly. You look at what YOU want, regardless of the fact that it's illegal.
I don't have anything against government serving the people.
Right. Even if it is illegal and harms people. You don't care, because YOU want it.
You're extremely selfish.
Always with the mind-reading... now you know what I think and why I think it -- and we've never even met!
Since you insist you know what I'm thinking better than I do, I'll just leave you to argue both sides by yourself. Somehow, I already know which side is gonna win...
Posted by: scottd on August 24, 2009 05:55 PMThat means, as per the Tenth Amendment, it is therefore disallowed.
You either know this and don't care, or you've convinced yourself otherwise BECAUSE you don't like it.
You can try to convince yourself your interpretation of the Constitution is somehow consistent with the facts and objective, but it's just not true. I don't need to meet you to see this clearly.
I just don't think my liberty is compromised if I choose to purchase health insurance from the government any more than it is if I mail letters through the Post Office instead of FedEx.
But my liberty is compromised by being FORCED to buy a product I may not want, or having all my choices eliminated. How is that right and constitutional?
And yet, somehow, FedEx managed to succeed in the face of government competition.
False. When FedEx started, there wasn't any "overnight" delivery services with the Post Office. The Post Office began offering well after FedEx/Airborne/UPS pioneered the process.
Furthermore, FedEx/Airborne/UPS and others are prohibited by LAW from competing with the Post Office. They cannot carry mail, even if they wanted to. It is illegal.
The Post Office is a Government Monopoly, granted by the Constitution. It also loses money more years than not, even though it pays no corporate tax nor pays leases/property taxes on its properties, nor pays tabs/excise taxes on its fleet of vehicles, all of which are expenses that the private companies must bear.
The Post Office is about as far from "fair competition" as you can get - a Government-granted monopoly on a major service, tax-free operations, and no need to turn a profit as the Government wallet will cover any shortfall.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 24, 2009 06:15 PMWhat makes you think I don't live with that ... every day? People like you, trying to selfishly take from others, is the reason I am involved in politics at all. I do live with it, and try to help make it better, because I care about ALL other people, not just myself and the people I deem "worthy" of being "helped."