On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[dude1394]

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.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmm..not sure what happened to my last post. But in general I just disagree and I think you are thinking like an elitist.

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.

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.

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.

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.

they will have to if those other employers offer health insurance benefits, wlamart will need to compete for the workers.

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.

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.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

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.

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.

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.

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

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

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.