The best health care in the world

[Openmind]

No its not. Each state varies in terms of regulations and in many cases smaller providers are simply unable to compete in those states because they cannot get through the web of regulations, and are unable to offer mandated policies in each of the states.

What needs to happen is instead of having 50 state markets, we have 1 national market, which eliminates all of these burdensome barriers to market entry for smaller companies and actually allows for competition across state lines...hence the "allow companies to sell across state lines" mantra.

Funny you should say that! Isn't that what a "Public Option" would have done?

And. . .wouldn't that be "emposing" the same standards across State Lines, although some States are so much poorer than other states and thus would have more trouble meeting those "standards?"

Aren't you talking about a monopoly, or at list a megapoly?

Mind you, I am certainly NOT against it. . .in fact the ONLY difference between what you propose and what a Public Option would have accomplished is that a Public option would have provided a CHEAPER (because it would have been a non-profit) alternative to the private (for profit) options.

 

[BigRob]

Funny you should say that! Isn't that what a "Public Option" would have done?

No, it would have created a government monopoly, instead of opening the door for competition.

And. . .wouldn't that be "emposing" the same standards across State Lines, although some States are so much poorer than other states and thus would have more trouble meeting those "standards?"

Aren't you talking about a monopoly, or at list a megapoly?

No, I am talking about breaking down barriers to entry into the market place, something that will foster competition in the private sector.

Mind you, I am certainly NOT against it. . .in fact the ONLY difference between what you propose and what a Public Option would have accomplished is that a Public option would have provided a CHEAPER (because it would have been a non-profit) alternative to the private (for profit) options.

No, the difference is that one is a government run monopoly, and the other actually allows for private companies to compete for my business....and the only way the public option would have been "cheaper" is if the government simply said "this is the price", and price controls have been shown over and over again to never work.

 

[Openmind]

No, it would have created a government monopoly, instead of opening the door for competition.



No, I am talking about breaking down barriers to entry into the market place, something that will foster competition in the private sector.



No, the difference is that one is a government run monopoly, and the other actually allows for private companies to compete for my business....and the only way the public option would have been "cheaper" is if the government simply said "this is the price", and price controls have been shown over and over again to never work.

Can you show me where a public OPTION has ever been proposed as a MONOPOLY?

Even the name contradict that statement!

Even in England, where the national health care is generalized to everyone, people still have a choice to go to a private doctor and a private hospital
!

The public option would have provided a cheaper alternative, just because the PROFIT would have been taken out of the bottom line.

Then, the private health care could have competed with the non profit public option.... The most efficient and cheaper would have attracted the most customers.

It has worked for decades in other developed countries. . . And private Insurances have survived because they have adapted, offering competitive rate and/or "Fringe benefits.".

 

[Dr.Who]

Can you show me where a public OPTION has ever been proposed as a MONOPOLY?

Not an actual monopoly but a virtual monopoly. That way congress can still get the good care

In the UK for example that vast majority of care is provided by the public system. Anyone who wants to use a private caregiver is allowed to but the money they have already spent for the public system is spent and they have to pay for the private system on top of that - how lucky they get to pay twice. Yea, that's a great option

In Canada 99% of physicians services are paid for through the public system. Yep, that 1% left is a thriving competitor maybe it is the richest 1% who uses that 1%. And for the regular joe a lot of health care services are illegal to pay for privately.

Even the name contradict that statement!

Like the name of a bill was never in direct contradiction to the effect.

Even in England, where the national health care is generalized to everyone, people still have a choice to go to a private doctor and a private hospital
!

Some "choice"

The public option would have provided a cheaper alternative, just because the PROFIT would have been taken out of the bottom line.

It will or would be more expensive.

Then, the private health care could have competed with the non profit public option.... The most efficient and cheaper would have attracted the most customers.

The gov never competes on equal terms. It will or would be just like the postal service that gets the benefit of a law making it illegal for anyone else to provide first class mail service.

In the U.S. employers are already dropping coverage for employees and Obamacare is not even approved by the scotus. If it continues we will all have far far less choice not more - and it will be more expensive.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

if they have better cheaper health care options...thats one monopoly I will be happy for. If they don't there is no reason the Free market would not be able to compete.

 

[bododie]

if they have better cheaper health care options...thats one monopoly I will be happy for

Typical. Screw the law of the land as long as it benefits ME and mine.

 

[Dr.Who]

if they have better cheaper health care options...thats one monopoly I will be happy for. If they don't there is no reason the Free market would not be able to compete.

Except for coercive legislation that is a threat to the security and freedom of all.

 

[Openmind]

Typical. Screw the law of the land as long as it benefits ME and mine.

The law of the land is supposed to be serving me and mine, and you and yours.

Our founders didn't use the Constitution with the intent of screwing the poor, the elderly and the disables, did they?

 

[bododie]

The law of the land is supposed to be serving me and mine, and you and yours.

Our founders didn't use the Constitution with the intent of screwing the poor, the elderly and the disables, did they?

Tell it to POS. He's the one who doesn't care about a monopoly if it serves his liberal agenda.

 

[Dr.Who]

The law of the land is supposed to be serving me and mine, and you and yours.

Our founders didn't use the Constitution with the intent of screwing the poor, the elderly and the disables, did they?

The way they set it up it did not.

The way it is used today it screws everyone in turns.

When you play a board game it is the rules that make it fair not the outcome. The rule for the country is that all rights matter so everyone should get to keep their property. When some players end up with less that does not mean the rules were unfair. But when we alter the rules so that money is moved from those who did well under the original rules to those who did not do well under the original rules then that is unfair.

 

[Dr.Who]

Typical. Screw the law of the land as long as it benefits ME and mine.

Yes,

For you edification:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13675

 

[Openmind]

Tell it to POS. He's the one who doesn't care about a monopoly if it serves his liberal agenda.

Dear, a monopoly is a ONE, and ONLY ONE provider of any service or product.

A public option would have been. . .exactly that. . .AN OPTION to pick a non-profit, government provided health care (like, extend medicare as an OPTION to everyone) that would have had to compete with the existing (or new) PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT insurances.

This is the way it works in many European Country, and this is why EVERY insurance (private or governmental) in Europe is at leats 1/3 cheaper than in the US.

If you enjoy paying 30 to 50 % more for health care than the rest of developped countries, just to keep big business from having REAL competition that would lower their profit margin. . .that's your choice.

It has NOTHING to do with a monopoly, and it has nothing to do with imposing anything on anyone. . .but the public option was rejected outright by the GOP. . .who obviously bowed to the health care lobbyists.

And the "mandate" is realy to protect all of us from paying for "free loaders" who could afford a minimum health care insurance, but prefer to "take the risk,". . .until they have a car accident, or a member of their family is struck with a major illness. . .then they go to the emergency room, receive minimal care . . .but at tax payers' expense!

Not smart!

 

[Openmind]

Not an actual monopoly but a virtual monopoly. That way congress can still get the good care

In the UK for example that vast majority of care is provided by the public system. Anyone who wants to use a private caregiver is allowed to but the money they have already spent for the public system is spent and they have to pay for the private system on top of that - how lucky they get to pay twice. Yea, that's a great option

In Canada 99% of physicians services are paid for through the public system. Yep, that 1% left is a thriving competitor maybe it is the richest 1% who uses that 1%. And for the regular joe a lot of health care services are illegal to pay for privately.

Like the name of a bill was never in direct contradiction to the effect.

Some "choice"

It will or would be more expensive.



The gov never competes on equal terms. It will or would be just like the postal service that gets the benefit of a law making it illegal for anyone else to provide first class mail service.

In the U.S. employers are already dropping coverage for employees and Obamacare is not even approved by the scotus. If it continues we will all have far far less choice not more - and it will be more expensive.

I am keenly aware of how other health care system function, having experienced personally at least 4 of them outside the US!

You are full of propaganda, but no facts!
Just understand that "the average Joe" is more than happy not to have to worry about paying a "private health care," and if they do want a second (or third or fourth) opinion from a "private, for profit" doctor, they can still do that, and still have access to their free health care.

And, countries like France, Belgium, and Italy DO HAVE A STRIVING private insurance business. . .BUT they have to compete with the governmental insurance, so they MUST keep their price competitive and/or offer "fringe benefits" (such as a week Summer camp on the seashore for the kids, or much reduce "Winter sport" fare for the kids, etc. . .).

AND, contrary to your uneducated statement, the cost of health care (private or governmental) in Belgium is at least 30% lower than in the US.

 

[bododie]

You could have a serious comprehension deficit that you should take your own advise for and seek professional help about.

I didn't ask for your 3rd grade explanation of a monopoly. I was calling POS out for his mentality that anything that benefits ME (HIM, GOT IT?) is O.K., which I aver is the disease called liberalism, which you call progressivism.

 

[Openmind]

You could have a serious comprehension deficit that you should take your own advise for and seek professional help about.

I didn't ask for your 3rd grade explanation of a monopoly. I was calling POS out for his mentality that anything that benefits ME (HIM, GOT IT?) is O.K., which I aver is the disease called liberalism, which you call progressivism.

And you should be diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder for your constant meanness and ridiculous attempts to belittle people.

I do not need a lesson from you on monopoly or health care. However, I have learned that when talking to people with a mind of a 10 year old, it is better to use a language that they can (maybe) understand.