Monday, November 16, 2009
And that ain't an old wives' tale.
It's at the top of my list of old wives' tales. That government can't do things as good as the private sector. That government will screw things up. I prefer a truth. That government can do much better than the private sector. If we just allow government to operate the way it's supposed to. Providing essential services. Without having to make a profit. Such as providing health care insurance. The private insurers typically weave in profits of 20 percent or more. I'm told that the government-run Medicare program has an administrative cost of a little over 3 percent. And it's a good program. You won't find senior citizens clamoring for Medicare to be privatized. Really, Medicare should be extended to everyone. Under the auspices of the government. Yes, get rid of the greedy private insurers. They have no qualms about ripping us off. We're at an important juncture in American politics. It's quite possible that a high-minded Democratic majority can finally bring us a private health insurance option. That would be wonderful. Maybe not everything that socialist-sympathizers like me would like. But at least, it'd be a step in the right direction. Of course, it's gonna meet with stiff resistance from Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the private insurers. But hey, it's time to give the masses of hard-working Americans what they want and deserve. Universal and affordable health care. Under a public option. If the private insurers want to compete with the government, that's fine with me. But tell you what. The private insurers are running scared. For a reason. They know that the government can do a better job of it. And that ain't an old wives' tale. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I really really hope you live long enough to see how very wrong you are. We are already seeing the U.S.Post Office floundering, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. The Government is supposed to operate according to the Constitution, not political whims.
Private insurance will NOT be able to compete with "The Plan". Once "The Plan" enters Day One, we, as private citizens of this free United States of America, will no longer be able to purchase private insurance. Only those covered before Day One, can retain their private insurance. Also, after five years, the private insurance that is still in force, must equal the requirements of "The Plan".
The "high-minded Democratic majority" will have effectively taken away our free choice. We will not even be able to choose to not have insurance, and pay for our own medical care. Those who do not join "The Plan" will be taxed a percentage of their income, and forced to "join".
As for medicare: a major problem is that millions of citizens are qualified, yet do not sign up for medicaid/medicare. Where does personal responsibility come in?? Did you know, that over 6 out of 10 children who are available for medicaid, are NOT enrolled?? What are these parents doing??
The "high-minded Democrats" are shoving this "plan" down our throats, instead of working in phases, to guarantee we are protected. They should spend their energies of fixing the current programs, before they put through this monstrosity.
You make me wonder if being a Republican is a disease. --Jim
You know, if it is a disease, you probably can go in for a cure. Or at least get some therapy to ease the pain and shame. --Jim
Why do you assume I am Republican? Because I don't agree with you? I vote independently. I have voted "Democrat" and "Republican". I seek what is good for American citizens, not a political party. I would never support this "plan" simply because it is mainly Democratic-sponsored, as you seem to do. I am actually informing myself, as to the effects it will have. Yours is all conjecture.
You could do yourself a favor, and educate yourself on what you stand behind. It's gonna get behind you, and bite.
Your position is a Republican position. Sure, I understand why you wouldn't want to be identified as a Republican. For the same reason you don't want to be identified as an idiot. --Jim
Whatever...time will tell.
Sounds to me like you are taking life in good stride. And that you aren't afraid to stand up for your beliefs. And that you'll wise-up some day. --Jim
It's all in black and white. You admit you have not even attempted to read it. So, you are ignorant of its contents, and I am not.
Broede's Broodings said...
Sounds to me like you are taking life in good stride. And that you aren't afraid to stand up for your beliefs. And that you'll wise-up some day. --
So let me guess, Standing up for what one believes in is wrong? Anonymouse will need to wise up one day??
When will it be your turn to wise up?
Calling the kettle black again?
Haven't you noticed? I'm a wise-guy. --Jim
I know people who read things from beginning to end, and still they don't comprehend what they've read. They haven't yet learned to grasp. To think. --Jim
And don't tell me Medicare is floundering, dear anonymous. It's thriving. It's a good program. And we ought to extend Medicare so it covers everyone. Yes, universal coverage. With Medicare. I'll tell you what's floundering. Our present system of private insurers out to make obscene profits. Rather than to serve the common good. I say to hell with the private insurers. Give us all the Medicare option. Let the common good be served. -Jim Broede
"..letting workers control their health care dollars and tearing down regulatory barriers to competition would control costs, expand choice, improve health care quality, and make health coverage more secure."
"A full accounting shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. The central problem with proposals to create a new government program, however, is not that government is less efficient than private insurers, but that government can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers away from private insurance, despite offering an inferior product.
A health insurance "exchange," where consumers choose between private health plans with artificially high premiums and a government program with artificially low premiums, would not increase competition. Instead, it would reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business. President Obama's vision of a health insurance exchange is not a market, but a prelude to a government takeover of the health care sector. In the process, millions of Americans would be ousted from their existing health plans."
"Congress should reject proposals to create a new government health insurance program — not for the sake of private insurers, who would be subject to unfair competition, but for the sake of American patients, who would be subject to unnecessary morbidity and mortality."
*****“Why Don’t We Fix the Two Public Options We Have Now instead of Creating a Third One?”*****
Michael F. Cannon
Director of Health Policy Studies-Cato Inst.
(bachelor's degree in American government (B.A.) from the University of Virginia, and master’s degrees in economics (M.A.) and law & economics (J.M.) from George Mason University.)
A Fellow Traveller
The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank. The smart guys are with the liberal think tanks. I choose to swim with the liberals rather than sink/drown with the conservatives. --Jim
Actually, Cato is based on a "market liberal" vision, and is per se more liberal than your own views. True liberalism has been corrupted by present-day American liberals.
"Cato's Mission:
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."
What can be wrong with that?
A Fellow Traveller
Doesn't sound socialist enough for me. I'm for more public sector stuff and less private sector. More serving of the common good. More from a liberal perspective than a conservative perspective. --Jim
Libertarians tend to dominate the Cato Institute. And libertarians tend to align themselves with the Republican Party. And that makes me wary of Libertarians. --Jim
So..you are prejudiced against all Republicans? That, in itself, is non-liberal.
Government assistance is one thing; government take-over is quite another. What is to stop the government deciding it needs to take over purchasing our shoes?
The U.S. Constitution, supposed to be the supreme law of the United States, does not give to the federal government any authority to set up universal health care systems.
I completely agree with the above anonymous. You will have to wait and see.
A Fellow Traveller
The Constitution needs updating. We aren't living in the 18th century any more. True liberals give the Constitution new meaning, new interpretations. We aren't bound by the old ways. --Jim Broede
And if government wants to buy me a pair of shoes, that's all right with me. As long as the shoes fit. I need good walking shoes. --Jim
I can be wary of Republicans, and still qualify as a liberal. There's no firmly set definition for a liberal. And there are degrees of liberalism. --Jim
"The Constitution needs updating."
Well, I haven't heard of a Constitutional Convention lately. Until we do, we ARE bound by it.
"And if government wants to buy me a pair of shoes, that's all right with me. As long as the shoes fit. I need good walking shoes."
Ahhhh. That's the thing-they may not fit. They may not be running shoes; they may be slippers. Whatever the government decides is right for you. Just like this health care bill.
A Fellow Traveller
If they give me slippers, I'll accept them. And if they don't fit, I'll give 'em away to some needy person that they do fit. I'm flexible. Adaptable. I'll look at the slippers as a well-intentioned gift. Meanwhile, I'll make my walking shoes last. Or I'll go out and buy a new pair. And I'll thank my blessed, socialist/liberal government for being so generous. --Jim
Meanwhile, I'll work for a liberal Supreme Court. To give a liberal interpretation to the Constitution. And I'll work for a constitutional convention. With strong support from liberals and socialists, and to the great annoyance of conservatives and Republicans. What the hell. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. --Jim Broede
I'll also work for a parliamentary form of government. With participation from multiple parties. I don't like our two-party system. It's crappy. And inefficient. --Jim
And what's right for me and society as a whole is universal coverage. In essence, Medicare for everyone. I'm working for it. Some day, we'll get it. We liberals have to be persistent. Better than letting conservatives and Republicans shove their asinine 'plan' down our throats. I'd rather that the liberals do the shoving. --Jim
How are you working for it? By writing this blog? You have stated many times you don't go out in the real world to preach.
So do tell how you are working towards it.
I work for things by consulting my dear pal, god. He and I have conversations. And I've been led to believe that god has great influence in many matters. I'm following his advice. And he's told me precisely how to accomplish my goal. And to go about it quietly. Without tipping my hand. He said that virtually anything is possible. Even for us humans to walk on water. All it takes is belief that one can do it. Beyond an iota of doubt. --Jim Broede
Post a Comment