Public Option

I am woefully ignorant. Educate me!

Terrible. Expensive. Government takeover.

At 11/3/2009 7:46:11 PM, mongoose wrote:
Terrible.

Opinion.

Expensive.

Not if properly managed.

Government takeover.

So?

At 11/3/2009 7:47:15 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 11/3/2009 7:46:11 PM, mongoose wrote:
Terrible.

Opinion.

Expensive.

Not if properly managed.

And the government can manage properly? Doubt it.

Government takeover.

So?

Destroys liberty.

At 11/3/2009 7:47:15 PM, Volkov wrote:

Government takeover.

So?

Historically inefficient. Directs resources away from consumer demand. Limits liberty.

At 11/3/2009 7:49:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
And the government can manage properly? Doubt it.

I would like to differ when a pure-public system like Canada can handle its healthcare costs much better than the pure-private system like the US has. Or are Canadians just that much healthier?

Destroys liberty.

Any government destroys "liberty"; that is the purpose of a government. Or are we going anarchist now?

The purpose of a government is to provide as much liberty as possible under a structure that guarantees rights and freedoms; a public option only enhances that purpose, as it gives those that are literally left to the wolves a chance to live, work, succeed, and prosper. Or do we not like prosperity?

How is the public option a government takeover? It is merely the creation of a health insurance company run by the government. Private companies will continue to exist. How is this a government takeover by any means?

From what I understand the government option:

- provides cheaper coverage for those that can't afford comprehensive health insurance

- will force private sector insurance companies to keep premiums at a lower level to better compete

- will likely provide better coverage at cheaper prices than private health insurance plans because there is no profit-margin to be thought about, no advertising costs etc...

- for that last reason, it is feasible to imagine that the government option will mean the gradual, yet eventual destruction of the private health insurance sector because the private companies will continue to lose customers to the cheaper and (possibly) more comprehensive government plan, forcing them to further slash premiums, resulting in huge revenue losses until they take their final swirl around the toilet bowl before going down the drain.

This could be a good or bad thing. Personally i think these companies are the same as the crooks on Wall Street and the bigger hit they take, the better. But if these companies start going down, two things are going to happen:

1) A large number of people will be forced to go with the government plan once no more feasible alternatives remain.
2) The government, stuck caring for more people than it can handle will need to generate more revenue to deal with the rising costs meaning either a) taxes go up OR b) deficit goes up.

At 11/3/2009 8:02:16 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 11/3/2009 7:49:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
And the government can manage properly? Doubt it.

I would like to differ when a pure-public system like Canada can handle its healthcare costs much better than the pure-private system like the US has. Or are Canadians just that much healthier?

We don't have a fully private system. We have the AMA and FDA to contend with.

At 11/3/2009 8:08:56 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
- for that last reason, it is feasible to imagine that the government option will mean the gradual, yet eventual destruction of the private health insurance sector because the private companies will continue to lose customers to the cheaper and (possibly) more comprehensive government plan, forcing them to further slash premiums, resulting in huge revenue losses until they take their final swirl around the toilet bowl before going down the drain.

Does the U.S. Postal Service destroy private carriers like UPS orFedex?
Do library systems destroy prite book stores?

No.