View Single Post
Old 06-29-2009, 01:01 PM   #38
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
there you go again, tossing out accusations of "elitist", but without any rationale. this is the very same line of thought used above about obama, and you couldn't back it up then either.

let's see, there are private health insurance option available, there are still going to be employer provided benefits of family health insurance available, and for those who cannot get coverage there will be a public plan.

how is that in any way "elitist"? is our current structure "elitist"? it's not.

ridiculous accusation.
It's not elitist when other people have access to it, like they do now. However, when the public option gets approved and rationing begins, it will become elitist. Sorry...might sting a little, but it will.

Quote:
gee, if fannie and freddie have 50%, that means there are 1 of every 2 mortgages that are not freddie or fannie. guess what? that means half of all mortgages are NOT freddie or fannie.....to say that this "crowd[s] out" other mortgage companies is absurd.
True...not saying that those programs are "crowding" out the others, only making a point that even in a profitable business model, those programs have become the biggest providers, why? It's not because they are the best at it, I"m sure. If I understand it, it's because they have cheaper access to capital than public companies...in other words having it run by the government gives it an inherent advantage....which will also occur with the public option.
Edit: Actually the more I think about it, capturing 50% of the market with a government agency might be defined as crowding out quite a large chunk of the market. Especially when there is no inherent reason for it to be doing so.

Quote:
they will have to if those other employers offer health insurance benefits, wlamart will need to compete for the workers.
They will not have to imo.

Quote:
like I said, you like to use conjecture to support your point. you put out 10% without any factual basis.

currently the vast amjority of emploers provide health insurance benefits to attract and keep their talent. these companies offer multiple choices of health insurance plans, from ppo to hmo. there is no reason that you or anyone else have put forth on why this dynamic will change.
The 10% is just a number of folks making 100K or more, the best and brightest as it were. Here...the exact number is 15.82% or so making 100K, feel better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

Last edited by dude1394; 06-29-2009 at 01:04 PM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote