Quote:
Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1
I agree with much of what you said except you cant be seriously saying Jesse Jackson has as much influence with the dems as Rush has with the GOP? Be realistic.
|
Actually, I would argue that Jesse actually has
more influence than Limbaugh. He organizes protests and voting blocs across the country, most of which receive wide MSM coverage, and actually usually even coverage from Limbaugh himself. This allows him to both directly and indirectly pressure politicians. Limbaugh only has the power to indirectly pressure politicians through his listening audience. Limbaugh has the power to bring greater indirect pressure, but Jackson has more versatility and the ability to bring the hammer down. Politically, he's far more dangerous to cross.
Quote:
|
Also, I disagree with your claim I quote here. As an example to the contrary, the post office hasn't driven FedEx, UPS, DHL, and dozens of smaller carriers out of business. In fact, most of those companies started while the USPS was the dominant carrier, having been around for a couple hundred years. So its merely a scare-tactic by the party of 'no' to claim that a public option would drive private insurance companies out of business.
|
The difference, of course, being that the post office is a government owned corporation, not a government service, and a highly inefficient one at that. The situation as I see it with a public option is this - either:
1) The public option is so inefficient that it allows private insurers to continue to function, and thus requires federal subsidies to continue to function (somewhat like the post office)
2) The public option is able to turn a profit somehow, but not as much as private insurance, and this fact is used to claim that the insurance companies are somehow not tightly regulated enough and is turning objectionable amounts of profit (much as the energy industry), or...
3) The public option forgoes pulling in monies, and simply provides health care, which combined with its likely invulnerability to state statutes regulating insurance, would render it an unfair competitive advantage and likely drive several firms out of business, then slowly slip into horrible inefficiency over the next X years (much as the public school system).
I simply don't see these as desirable outcomes.
Quote:
|
Even if they were right, and private insurance went bye-bye, it wouldn't be the first time government stepped in to run things and drove private interests out of business (by mandate, not by competition). One of the first things the GOP led government did after 9/11 was to put THOUSANDS of security screening companies out of business by taking over the entire business of airport security screening. The problem wasn't bad screening either .... the problem was unsecured cockpit doors, policies that allowed small blades to be carried on-board, and general malaise regarding appeasement of terrorists on airplanes. Notice the shoe-bomber got through FEDERALLY RUN security, but the people on the airplane beat the shit out of him. So when are all of those republicans that passed the legislation to take over security screening operations going to apologize and admit they were wrong? A friend of mine saw his business go completely out-of-business literally overnight because of that takeover. He's still doing fine, and in fact is doing better than ever, but he did have to change lines of work.
|
But that is part and parcel of my point. The federal government
doesn't do that better than private industry. I was in opposition when the federal government took over airport security too. The federal option is generally less efficient and more obtrusive than any competitive private option.
As a side note, I'm not
following the Republicans on this, I'm
siding with them on it, much like I
sided with the Democrats on the Iraq war. I have no loyalty to either party. It's not that I think the GOP is better or more trustworthy than the Dems, it's that I think they're right this time.