View Single Post
Old 06-29-2009, 11:08 AM   #34
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
Hmm..not sure what happened to my last post. But in general I just disagree and I think you are thinking like an elitist. Like FannieMae/FreddieMac took over 50% of the mortgages in this country, the public option will quickly crowd out private insurers. Then the guvment will increase those perks to buy votes.. Contributing to the already overwhelming unfunded committments that medicare/medicaid already have.

There is a sort of silver lining I guess. Now lefties can quit bitching about wal-mart not providing affordable health care, as they won't have to.

The companies imo will quickly move to the public option and only the uber-priviledged like Barry will have private care. Your assertion might be true for the top 10% wage-earners imio.
fannie and freddie became the SECONDARY destination for 50% of mortgages. The originating banks had it just EXACTLY how they wanted. they still originated (and got the fees for that) and they, or some other private sector party, manged the mortgage (got day-to-day payments, etc...) and fannie or freddie packaged the underlying obligations into an MBS (mortgage backed security) or simply held onto several tranches of the risk themselves in house. YOu could argue that fannie/freddie squeezed out AIG or lehman etc... as the ultimate back-stop for the obligations, but there was plenty of room for those guys to come in shoulder to shoulder with fannie/freddie in those tranches of risk ... and unfortunately AIG jumped into that with both feet, and proved to be an inadequate counterparty.

in terms of health insurance... if there is rationing by queues, as you assert there will be, then there should be PLENTY of demand for supplemental coverage, no?

the arguments against the plan seem to simultaneously be:

1) it will be dreadfully inefficient, and we will all have to plan our heart attacks 6 months in advance to work our way through the bureaucracy...

and

2) it will be so efficient and inexpensive that all people will flock to it and abandon the private providers.
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote