Why Are Republicans Scared of Competition??

[Facial_King]

...at least they seem to be when it comes to American healthcare.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/14/sirota/index.html

Excerpt:

Anyone who remembers the 1993-94 healthcare fights knows that Republicans have long asserted that private insurance is more efficacious and more adored by patients than government-run programs like Medicare. To solve the healthcare crisis, those on the right say we must foster more price-cutting, efficiency-producing competition. "The American people know that innovation, choice, and competition work," wrote Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in an archetypal Op-Ed titled "Competition Solves Health Care."

Give conservatives credit here: At minimum, this argument had a logic to it, however flawed. Sure, it is belied by data: The Urban Institute reports that private insurers spend up to 30 percent of their revenue on administrative costs (read: salaries, paperwork, etc.) while government programs spend just 5 percent, and polls show Medicare recipients are far more satisfied with their healthcare than those in the private system. But, in nonetheless claiming that the private sector will always outperform the government, Republicans at least presented an ideologically coherent (if fantastically inaccurate) hypothesis.

That all changed, though, when Democrats this week began pushing to let citizens buy into a government-sponsored health plan similar to the one federal lawmakers enjoy.

The allegedly competition-loving GOP immediately stated its strong opposition on the grounds that the initiative would begin "forcing free market plans to compete with government-run programs," as congressional Republicans lamented. While Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., insisted that the GOP remains "committed to common-sense solutions that promote competition," he said his party is "concerned that if the government" is permitted to compete, "it will eventually push out the private healthcare plans."

Hold on a second.

Don't Republicans insist that "competition solves healthcare?" Yes, ad nauseam.

Haven't they been telling us that government programs are obviously worse than private health insurance? Yes, again.

Then, don't they welcome a private-versus-public competition, believing that the former will easily trump the latter? Well ... uh ... no.

 

[Philbert]

Another in a long line of silly posts by F-K...quote someone else, misrepresent an issue, and say pretty much nothing.
And then, I suppose, he'll tell us to "discuss"...:rofl:


(Remember those 2 old ladies Mike Meyers did on SNL...their hero was Babs Streisand, and one would always say "Discuss amongst yourselves", or "discuss". Definate similarity there...)

 

[shayd]

I think the GOP members have a point here. Private health care essentially makes health care providers make more benefits available, that's how the make money. Public (government-funded) health care would not, as the government would simply have to provide a bare minimum benefits program.

 

[Facial_King]

I think the GOP members have a point here. Private health care essentially makes health care providers make more benefits available, that's how the make money. Public (government-funded) health care would not, as the government would simply have to provide a bare minimum benefits program.

My ex worked in hospital administration, in quality control, for many years and she has told me that starting in the early '90s, most of her job boiled down to talking with people from the private health insurance companies, trying to explain why such and such a surgery, procedure, test, etc. for a particular patient was medically necessary for the patient's health, as the companies didn't want to cover anything.

I don't think the private health (insurance) companies make more money by making more benefits available. They make more money by having people pay for coverage and then paying out for as few claims as possible. An individual can get a private health insurance policy as minimal or as luxurious as they want, but whatever the case, the private insurers will generally fight tooth and nail to actually pay out. That's how they make their profits.

Thanks, shayd for your comment and engaging me in a discussion like a civil adult; I'm really growing to appreciate that more and more!

===========

Philbert - my offer still stands (your post above just confirmed what I said before):

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=3020577&postcount=9

 

[Facetious]

Not to buffer a party that I am not affiliated with, but isn't it the dominant, extreme - radical commy, weak wrist - activist fem-males and their bulky big sisters who dominate the rank, file and hierarchy of the public school teachers union "+" the u.s. dept of edukation that are responsible for banning competition ? Feelings just might get hurt boo huu :crying:
Ahh haa

Sez the teacher :
"No more recess and :nono: no more playing in the "playground" now, my ritalin / prozac-ed up minions, we're learning how to be good green sheeple".

faking - The only way that an individual could possibly harbor the amount contempt that you so often spew, reveals a person who, apparently, couldn't (or wouldn't) figure out a life for themselves and simply just let it all slip by and in the process, fell to the doldrums of ward of the state.

How or what in the hell else am I suppose to think ? I suppose that your postings provide you with temporary midterm relief but seriously, go let 'em have it at that site that you introduced me to - "front storm" or whatever.

 

[georges]

Health care leechers are generally unwilling to work people or parasites and please don't give me please the "they are poor" excuse, it is too easy. I don't really understand why do you want to implement a free health care system where some lazy people get benefits of health care at the expense of hard working and honest people. This goes beyond sanity and logic. Sweden had this free health care for three decades but when the right finally won the elections in Sweden, they got rid of the free health care system, which was a good thing. People have to be responsible for their ownselves and should insure themselves that what they are doing is not going against their health or their will.

 

[D-rock]

I think the GOP members have a point here. Private health care essentially makes health care providers make more benefits available, that's how the make money. Public (government-funded) health care would not, as the government would simply have to provide a bare minimum benefits program.

One could argue that it's much better to have adequate health care for everybody than good health care for only a portion of the people while the others in society get screwed.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Anybody who knows the stats knows that our current private insurance with hundreds of seperate beauracies based form of health insurance is costing at least double per capita vs a single payer universal system like almost every country in the world has.
That has all kinds of effects, all negative.We spend double but don't cover everyone,what a good deal lol.Plus since our system is mostly employer based that puts our companies at a big disadvantage.No where else in the world has the crazy system we have where if you get seriously ill you are very likely to also be wiped out financially.1/2 of all bankruptcies in the US are health related.
If the govt starts to offer a health plan like has been proposed to compete with the private plans it won't be long before all the private plans are gone as they just cannot compete as even Roy Blount the republican says in the article,their administrative overhead costs are several times what the govt run ones are.This actually i'm sure is the goal of the proposed plan.We will have a universal non private insusrnce health care system in the next few years.It is only being delayed by politics and the power of the private health lobbys.We should have done this a decade ago under the clinton administration (could have saved trillions and covered everyone) but the lobby's were able to block that then.The latest proposals are just smaller steps to lay the ground work for the ineveitable universal system so as not to allow the lobbys to whip up the fear they did a decade ago and block it again.

 

[pikachar]

Then, don't they welcome a private-versus-public competition, believing that the former will easily trump the latter? Well ... uh ... no.

Well figuring that private health care plan will use federal money... nope. The US can go spend, spend, spend to save a deficit, and what will they cut 1st? DoD, Medicare, and Social Security (big 3 money makers/takers).

Yeah let's buy into a system when it could take up to 6 months to get a surgery.. I think not. Will a competition evolve, yes, but the federal side can "get people" if they lower the rates to damn near nothing (called fixing prices)... Then what is the private sector going to do, lower rates, and cut benefits... Guess what happens next?

You guess it... People in a panic, flood to the government system, and then get "damn near free heath care" with the government spending billions and billions of dollars... Then government will start to control costs, and standards of health care will decline (key words). Sorry I like the free market system... makes it easy to get in and out... getting the best care, at a fast pace. not waiting 6 months in line trying to get a x-ray because the x-ray machine only runs 10 days a year, and is use only by the government health care plan (meaning it's waaaaaay over used!). Oh and I forgot to mention Taxes would skyrocket..... yup good idea... I say make Federal Insurance be free, and see who runs to it!.... Brilliant idea... not.

 

[Philbert]

My ex worked in hospital administration, in quality control, for many years and she has told me that starting in the early '90s, most of her job boiled down to talking with people from the private health insurance companies, trying to explain why such and such a surgery, procedure, test, etc. for a particular patient was medically necessary for the patient's health, as the companies didn't want to cover anything.

I don't think the private health (insurance) companies make more money by making more benefits available. They make more money by having people pay for coverage and then paying out for as few claims as possible. An individual can get a private health insurance policy as minimal or as luxurious as they want, but whatever the case, the private insurers will generally fight tooth and nail to actually pay out. That's how they make their profits.

Thanks, shayd for your comment and engaging me in a discussion like a civil adult; I'm really growing to appreciate that more and more!

===========

Philbert - my offer still stands (your post above just confirmed what I said before):

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=3020577&postcount=9

I have a much better idea...you don't post in the talk forum, and I'll never post in one of your classic BS threads.
Most every post you make is some lame article you found, you misstate some obtuse conclusion, then expect your fellow whiners and bashers to all agree how right you are...NOT.
So, take your whining elsewhere and stop posting your crap ...or take the heat like a big boy.
What's your damage...?
Did you appoint yourself a moderator somewhere down the line, or are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?
(Probably both...discuss.):rofl:

 

[YMIHERE]

The government pays close to half of total medical expenses now. There is no problems and the people on medicare have few complaints. The GOP want the market to do to the medical industry what the market did to the financial industry.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/849239/government_pays_45_percent_of_health_costs/index.html


Sounds to me like Philbert is afraid of arguments that go against his ideology. You should trust the market place of ideas to determine the right course to take rather then say shut-up.

 

[Philbert]

The government pays close to half of total medical expenses now. There is no problems and the people on medicare have few complaints. The GOP want the market to do to the medical industry what the market did to the financial industry.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/849239/government_pays_45_percent_of_health_costs/index.html


Sounds to me like Philbert is afraid of arguments that go against his ideology. You should trust the market place of ideas to determine the right course to take rather then say shut-up.

Where do you get that? I'm afraid of what, exactly?
Since I have no idealogy, unlike yourself, and I post rebuttals with specific reasons whenever I post, where do you find any fear of slanted or generic arguments?
F-K is crying about my responding to any of his BS posts, and begging me to let him post anything he wants without calling BS...how does that equate with "shut up"?
Seems like you are confused once again, but nothing new there.

 

[Facial_King]

I have a much better idea...you don't post in the talk forum, and I'll never post in one of your classic BS threads.

:lame::thefinger

That's a silly idea, and I reject it.

Most every post you make is some lame article you found, You Misstate some obtuse conclusion, then expect your fellow whiners and bashers to all agree how right you are...NOT.

I expect no such thing. I only expect something other than childish name-calling and weak-ass character attacks and the like. You typically don't have anything constructive or thoughtful to say. That's my problem with you. There's nothing illegitimate or wrong with simply posting an article and asking folks what they think - even if I opt not to be part of the discussion (I actually do have a life beyond this forum, and don't always have the time to write my own comments, so I'll just read what others have read - also, maybe I'm writing an academic paper on "Conservative Argumentation Techniques on Internet Discussion Forums" and you're helping me to do my research, thanks!). If you don't like what I have to say, why not expound on where you think I'm incorrect, rather than just, again, doing the lame name-calling routine. Just because you say "That's b.s." or whatever doesn't make it so.

So, take your whining elsewhere and stop posting your crap ...or take the heat like a big boy.
What's your damage...?
Did you appoint yourself a moderator somewhere down the line, or are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?
(Probably both...discuss.):rofl:

Oh, I can take the "heat" - I'll just pretend you don't exist. I don't like how you pollute the threads I start (whereas, for example, ChefChiTown OFTEN disagrees with me, but he knows how to engage in constructive argument and debate - and there are some others here, too), but I can brush you off like a piece of lint on my arm, if I have no other choice. I made an offer and you rejected it, as you apparently really go in for trollish behavior. Fine.
It's also funny how you tell me to "stop posting your crap" and then go right on to ask if I appointed myself a moderator. That's some exemplary cognitive dissonance there.

There's a difference between trying to strike a deal with someone so they stop annoying you and ordering them to stop posting - that's what mods do.
So, did you appoint yourself a moderator?
:dunno:

 

[shayd]

My ex worked in hospital administration, in quality control, for many years and she has told me that starting in the early '90s, most of her job boiled down to talking with people from the private health insurance companies, trying to explain why such and such a surgery, procedure, test, etc. for a particular patient was medically necessary for the patient's health, as the companies didn't want to cover anything.

I don't think the private health (insurance) companies make more money by making more benefits available. They make more money by having people pay for coverage and then paying out for as few claims as possible. An individual can get a private health insurance policy as minimal or as luxurious as they want, but whatever the case, the private insurers will generally fight tooth and nail to actually pay out. That's how they make their profits.

Thanks, shayd for your comment and engaging me in a discussion like a civil adult; I'm really growing to appreciate that more and more!

I think I chose my words very poorly :o
Private insurance companies try to gain more clients through providing something better than their competition. You're absolutely right in saying that the agencies try to prevent paying as often as possible, my point was that by offering a better potential buyout, the companies entice new customers, which means more money.

One could argue that it's much better to have adequate health care for everybody than good health care for only a portion of the people while the others in society get screwed.

I agree, that argument can be made, but that argument treats health care as though it exists in a vaccuum. That is to say, there aren't problems with resources, and there is a plentiful amount of doctors and such to take care of patients, and to say that is true for the entire nation is a little bit of a stretch.

 

[stampede2873]

...at least they seem to be when it comes to American healthcare.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/14/sirota/index.html

Excerpt:

That all changed, though, when Democrats this week began pushing to let citizens buy into a government-sponsored health plan similar to the one federal lawmakers enjoy.

The allegedly competition-loving GOP immediately stated its strong opposition on the grounds that the initiative would begin "forcing free market plans to compete with government-run programs," as congressional Republicans lamented. While Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., insisted that the GOP remains "committed to common-sense solutions that promote competition," he said his party is "concerned that if the government" is permitted to compete, "it will eventually push out the private healthcare plans."

My attempt to be civil.... here goes.

I did not read the article, I just read the excerpt. So with that said....

Free market opviously thrives in competition, right? However, that competition does become negated by a government sponsored program, why you ask, I'll tell you.

Regardless, every company wants to make money. With competition the prices are driven lower and more affordable for us. This in turn makes the people want the product and in the end the company can make a tidy profit. However, with government sponsored programs in the mix, you cancell out any competition. The government programs are in it to provide a service, not make a profit. This allows the gov't sponsored program to UNDERCUT any price out there. Thereby eliminating the competion. Also, a federally funded program will require funding, where is that going to come from. The people, so in order for this program to get underway, taxes will have to be raised.

By offering a government program... sponsored by a tax initiative(The people are forced to pay for it), a signal is being sent to the people. Which is this, if your ALREADY paying for it through taxes, why pay a private company for the same benefits. Plus, private companies will lose money and their stock price will fall. Jobs will be lost and more people will rely on the government for a hand out. All that is done is creating a people that more and more rely on the government to help. Which means more of a tax burden on those that are working, raising taxes once more. This is unacceptable for people that have bills to pay.

This is what the Republicans are bitching about.

Maybe I wasn't articulate enough, but hopefully my point came across. Sorry if it didn't, I have a HUGE hangover.