Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

All things being equal, the private sector will always run things more efficiently than the government because the private sector does not have a monopoly. For instance, consider going to the DMV. It completely sucks, the employees are usually rude or brusque, there is a byzantine system of bureaucracy, and you don't have any fucking choice, so just smile and take it.

Now, imagine if I set up a competitor DMV where I paid employees a little more to give you service with a smile that was efficient. If the original DMV wanted to stay in business it would have to shape up its woeful act. But, I'm not allowed to setup a competitor DMV. So, you get what we've got, which is a place populated by inexplicably surly employees (considering they get about 75 paid holidays a year) who move at the speed of molasses. What motivation does anyone have to make that place better, when the government forces you to use it?

There are exceptions to this rule. For instance, when the government subsidizes things that society depends on but are not necessarily profitable to individual outfits. Or, there are times when competition isn't possible (utilities in an area for instance). But I think to make your point, you'd need to specifically outline why the government would do better at running healthcare than private individuals (and I don't see anything like it - I'm imagining some "doctor's union" driving prices up further while simultaneously lowering the quality of care).

So, it's not that there's anything necessarily "good" about the private sector running it. The consideration here is how things get worse when the party running it has a legally compelling monopoly.

Originally Posted by MarcATL

I'm not the one who's arguing that government is bad.

The guy I supported won.

I trust that guy.

I trust that he'll do what needs to be done.

Originally Posted by reality

Add more social control and break campaign promises? (new legislation on cigs and not pulling out of iraq.)

Originally Posted by MarcATL

If they let you tell it.

Originally Posted by MarcATL

So from your perspective its going from bad to worse.

What a set of choices.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Not yet. AFAIK, Obama is proposing single payer healthcare insurance rather than government run healthcare. I'm not really thrilled about having my taxes raised to pay other people's health insurance, but that's all that's going to happen (ostensibly). My coverage and care will not be affected.

Originally Posted by MarcATL

Whats AFIAK?

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

All things being equal, the private sector will always run things more efficiently than the government because the private sector does not have a monopoly. For instance, consider going to the DMV. It completely sucks, the employees are usually rude or brusque, there is a byzantine system of bureaucracy, and you don't have any fucking choice, so just smile and take it.

Now, imagine if I set up a competitor DMV where I paid employees a little more to give you service with a smile that was efficient. If the original DMV wanted to stay in business it would have to shape up its woeful act. But, I'm not allowed to setup a competitor DMV. So, you get what we've got, which is a place populated by inexplicably surly employees (considering they get about 75 paid holidays a year) who move at the speed of molasses. What motivation does anyone have to make that place better, when the government forces you to use it?

There are exceptions to this rule. For instance, when the government subsidizes things that society depends on but are not necessarily profitable to individual outfits. Or, there are times when competition isn't possible (utilities in an area for instance). But I think to make your point, you'd need to specifically outline why the government would do better at running healthcare than private individuals (and I don't see anything like it - I'm imagining some "doctor's union" driving prices up further while simultaneously lowering the quality of care).

So, it's not that there's anything necessarily "good" about the private sector running it. The consideration here is how things get worse when the party running it has a legally compelling monopoly.

Originally Posted by reality

Isn't the only real campaign promise he's kept buying his daughters a puppy?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

This wins the thread

Originally Posted by daddio

dog was a gift from Teddy the Killer... cheapskate

Originally Posted by reality

o so he couldn't even keep his promise to BUY the dog? He instead got one of his buds to buy it for him? wowwwwwy zowwy man

Originally Posted by solletica

Health insurance in the US is an unofficial cartel. All providers offer basically the same plans with the same (ridiculously menial) level of coverage, and all collaborate/share information amongst one another for the sake of maximizing profits.

Obama's intention is to create a government run plan to compete with the cartel. However, this may not work because the insurance cartel to a large extent controls Congress, so any government run plan will be influenced by the cartel in such a way as to make it non-competitive.

Hence, best solution to dismantle the cartel is to extend more credit for health insurance startups via a public bidding process to create more competition for health insurance. Simply allow the taxpaying public to review the plans offered by the startups, and let them vote on which ones will receive the financing.