Quote:
Originally Posted by 'BusNative
RB, this is not just aimed at you, but... the argument is that a company with no profit motive - but rather a utility motive - will go out of business without capitalization? Duh.
So what are you using to support this... argument? What exactly is your argument?
For the record, I'm not convinced that the public option will be deficit neutral on a pure P&L basis. I'm also not convinced that it needs to run break-even to be considered efficient. If I'm way short on funds, I'd take the USPS over $14 fedex. My letter will still get where it's going... If me and a million Americans I know each save $12-$13 per package, that's alot of savings... and that's good for 1 million Americans.
|
I realize the UPS is utility based organization and needs to be partially tax funded. However, being ran by the government isn't exactly helping it stay afloat. Mis-management and inefficiency will either force the postal service to be shut down or the tax burden will increase. The government isn't going to bat an eye lash in finding ways to fund their inefficiencies and with this system, it will repeat. The only real way to maximize efficiency in government run organizations is to actually let something like the UPS fail and show that poor business practice can still have ramifications. Now if it breaks even or even comes close, then it has done it's job, so no arguements if that ends up being the case.
It won't be deficit neutral because it assumes that most of uncovered citizen's will sign up for the public option, and not just when they get sick. If this is the case (which I believe it likely will be), the public option will either have to raise it's premiums, raise taxes (presumably on the 150,000$ up margin, which they already are hitting hard), or take the loss and see the deficit go up. They won't raise premiums because it would make the public option obselete if premiums are similar to existing premiums. It possibly could raise taxes even higher but aren't they shouldering enough under this bill's provisions? Another option would be rationing healthcare, particularly deciding which drugs are available for purchase based on the budget. Does the bill account for rising prices in the health field? Will new innovations create a system where people under the private sector have access to the new treatments and pharmaceuticals, while those under the public option are not? I doubt the administration will accurately estimate rising costs and remain deficit neutral. Additionally, the estimations for the healthcare bills are assuredly too optimistic. Medicare costs over 9 times what it was estimated to cost. Obama says the bill will be around 900 billion...if it follows the same path as Medicare...9 times 900 billion...someone help? Even if it's 3 times the estimations (if we are to be conservative)? I know politicians make a living lying but Pelosi exceeds that perception. Sometimes I wonder if she has uttered a truthful word in her tenure as Speaker of the House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxBuck
This is the argument that folks almost always use when they next say, "ready, fire, aim."
You need to know what your objectives are in order to design an appropriate solution. An objective that simply says, "well, things are so [censored]ed up now they just need to change in any way to be better" is never an effective objective. Congress has no idea what they want to accomplish, and they seem hell-bent on accomplishing exactly that.
|
Precisely. Also, just how bad is it for the average American? Sure, you hear these "Healthcare is so bad, listen to my situation" stories that get all the publicity, but how about the people like me that have been satisfied overall with their healthcare but just not the costs? I don't think many will argue that costs do need to be brought down somehow. But how about the quality? I believe we get better quality in the U.S. and that is
partly why the costs are higher. Not only do I believe that, America does in
this CNN poll (see I even used a liberal organization). The poll shows that more than 8 in 10 Americans are satisfied with the quality of health care, but more than 3 in 4 Americans are dissatisfied with costs. I think the average American wants to see more coverage, but first I think they would like to see costs go down and nothing in the proposed reform will do such. All it does is create another government promise that won't follow through (much like the stimulus) and contributes to debt. However, I do believe tort reform, medical savings programs, etc. could hammer down on costs and in turn provide more affordable health care. In summary, I think healthcare should always be slightly more expensive in this country simply because I believe it's slightly better, due to the fact that costs on innovations in technology, practice, and pharmaceuticals don't have caps like in socialized medicine. On the flip side, it shouldn't be as expensive as it is and that part of the system does need fixed, but I'm not so sure it is completely broken.
Recently the Republicans offered a one page summary of their proposed reform
here. So many people are saying "Well the Republicans aren't offering any alternatives!" That is a lie and here the alternatives are. A note to alleviate Folanator...it does include the promotion of healthier lifestyles through greater flexibility of offering benefits via the employers. Oddly enough, I suggested that not knowing it was already on the table. The full version is also available on the website. The plan includes no increase in taxes and no cuts to Medicare.
11-04-2009, 07:40 PM
Linear Mode
