Since the Liberals Suddenly Embrace "Competition & Choice"...

[Care4all]

Why are private insurance groups so afraid of a competitive public plan?

Because they can't Compete with a Blank Check...

A Blank Check held by the Regulators of the Industry that this "Competition" is Supposedly happening in...

I don't Know why some Liberals can't Understand some of the Words in our Language and their Meanings...

Or this Basic Concept that is so Painfully Obvious, a Gradeschooler can Grasp it.



peace...

i guess i am a kindergartner, because i still don't understand?

the public option would operate under the SAME rules as the private companies...?

what breaks or extra power are you ASSUMING the public option would have that would make this competition unfair?

ARE YOU AGAINST the private sector competing with the public sector as well?

why be hypocrites now regarding gvt and the private sector competing for our gvt dollars that we spend each year in taxes on healthcare for all of us?

you know, if our gvt gave no tax breaks or tax credits to people or companies for our healthcare, or didn't pay for near all children's healthcare with SCHIP, all heathcare for MEDICAID and MEDICARE recipients, all healthcare for the various militaries and their families, and retired military and their families and many veterans, and all menial gvt employees and their families, and all in congress and their families, and all at the post office and their families, and all in the senate and their families ALREADY, then our gvt really would be REACHING in trying to compete with the private sector, BUT SUCH, IS NOT the case....private companies should be competing for these gvt healthcare dollars being spent already, and IF and only IF the public option can COMPETE and OUT DO the private sector on cost AND BENEFITS for the policy holder, should it continue even being an option...

IT WILL BE A HUGE MISTAKE to pass this GIFTHORSE to the insurance companies, handing them at least 20-50 million more customers, without them even having to compete for them....which could lower prices.

peace

care

 

[Coyote]

Why don't the public schools examine what the private schools are doing right, and then model them? Instead they just throw more money at the problem.Same with healthcare. They want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Because it's not that simple.

Public schools have to take everyone - private schools can pick and choose.
Public schools are funded mostly by local tax revenues - thus there is a wide disparity in what they can draw from.
Parents who send their kids to private schools are often already showing a higher level of involvement with their child's education by opting to pay for private schooling - that automatically creates a higher selection criteria.

 

[Coyote]

Why are private insurance groups so afraid of a competitive public plan?

Because they can't Compete with a Blank Check...

A Blank Check held by the Regulators of the Industry that this "Competition" is Supposedly happening in...

I don't Know why some Liberals can't Understand some of the Words in our Language and their Meanings...

Or this Basic Concept that is so Painfully Obvious, a Gradeschooler can Grasp it.



peace...

Really? I look around and I see highly successful competition against "blank checks" proffered by the US Government: a multitude of private schools with good rates of success, the UPS, Fedex and DHL (and I'm sure other) private carrier services - despite considerable government regulation.

I'm beginning to think certain Conservatives lack the ability to comprehend these "Basic Concepts" you speak of.

Chaos...

 

[mal]

Why are private insurance groups so afraid of a competitive public plan?

Because they can't Compete with a Blank Check...

A Blank Check held by the Regulators of the Industry that this "Competition" is Supposedly happening in...

I don't Know why some Liberals can't Understand some of the Words in our Language and their Meanings...

Or this Basic Concept that is so Painfully Obvious, a Gradeschooler can Grasp it.



peace...

Really? I look around and I see highly successful competition against "blank checks" proffered by the US Government: a multitude of private schools with good rates of success, the UPS, Fedex and DHL (and I'm sure other) private carrier services - despite considerable government regulation.

I'm beginning to think certain Conservatives lack the ability to comprehend these "Basic Concepts" you speak of.

Chaos...

ALL of the Private Industry Examples you are Citing do a Better Job than the Government...

Why would you want the Government Expanding into ANY Industry in that Reality?...



peace...

 

[mal]

Why don't the public schools examine what the private schools are doing right, and then model them? Instead they just throw more money at the problem.Same with healthcare. They want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Because it's not that simple.

Public schools have to take everyone - private schools can pick and choose.
Public schools are funded mostly by local tax revenues - thus there is a wide disparity in what they can draw from.
Parents who send their kids to private schools are often already showing a higher level of involvement with their child's education by opting to pay for private schooling - that automatically creates a higher selection criteria.

Private Schools tend to do Better because the Parents who put them there TEND to be a little More Concerned about their Spawn than the Average.

My Wife is a Public School Teacher and Parental Involvement, or Lack thereof, is the #1 Contributor to Failure or Success on Average in her Experience.

Too Many Parents have NO Expectations of them in the Public System, and for Generations it's "Progressively" Failed the American Family as it has Slowly Replaced it.



peace...

 

[chanel]

I agree with Mrs Mal 100 percent But why not make aprents be more involved and accountable? My dept now buys all the students notebooks and calculators because the parents won't. We now have "attendance action plans" which basically relieves the parents from truancy laws. On average I get about four parents a year at conferences. Are schools enabling bad parenting or just surrendering to what's now considered."acceptable"?

All I know is that we are contributing to the entitlement mentality and its only getting worse.

 

[Coyote]

Not Analgous, nor do I Take your Assertion as Accurate... That's for another Thread.

We are Discussing Political Control over Regions... Like Detroit.



peace...

You're challange is fallacious because correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. Are economically depressed cities in bad shape because of Democratic control or do economically depessed areas tend to vote Democratic and populist? Statistically - urban areas tend towards the Democratic party.


Among the most economically depressed cities controlled by Democrats:

St. Louis, MO, New Orleans, Detroit, Flint, MI, Cleveland, Philadelphia. However linking it to Democratic control is tenuous since Detroit and Flint were both heavily influenced by the auto industry troubles.

Yet, in a recent survey of the ten best large cities in the U.S. we have:
San Diego (both)
Austin, TX (D), Raleigh, NC (D), Omaha, NE (D)
Mesa, AZ (R), Colorado Springs, CO (R), Virginia Beach, VA (R)

In addition, a look at the states provides a different picture - a ranking of states with the largest number of citizens living below the poverty level gives us:
# 1 Mississippi: 21.6%
# 2 Louisiana: 19.4%
# 3 New Mexico: 19.3%
# 4 District of Columbia: 18.9%
= 5 Arkansas: 17.9%
= 5 West Virginia: 17.9%
# 7 Kentucky: 17.4%
# 8 Texas: 16.6%
# 9 Alabama: 16.1%
# 10 South Carolina: 15.7%

Source: Percent below poverty level (most recent) by state

How many Democrats and how many Republicans?

A look at unemployment by state presents gives us a similar picture: Unemployment rates - Unemployment rates by state from CNNMoney

So do you really think party control has much to do with it or maybe a more complex mix of regional politics, geography, and economic conditions unrelated to politics?


Chaos

Yeah, and Boulder is Nice and Wealthy and Liberal as Hell...

I didn't say EVERY City Controlled by DemocRATS is Shit, but the ones that are have been for Generations...

And the Policies that Breed this Failure have come since and before LBJ.

Trying this Crap on a Large Scale will have the same Results on a Large Scale...

When I am Right, EVERYONE Loses...

But please, Experiment away!... You have 3/3's Control!



peace...

You have failed to prove your point since it doesn't explain state statistic nor can you answer the question:

So do you really think party control has much to do with it or maybe a more complex mix of regional politics, geography, and economic conditions unrelated to politics?

Can you prove correlation equals causation?

 

[bodecea]

I just wish the "poor" in our community would make wiser purchasing decisions. The poor kids in my school show up in expensive clothes and sneakers but without a calculator of breakfast.

Unfortunately, that is typical...those who are poor look for some visual status such as clothing, Ipods, phones, shoes before necessities a lot.

 

[rdean]

Not Analgous, nor do I Take your Assertion as Accurate... That's for another Thread.

We are Discussing Political Control over Regions... Like Detroit.



peace...

You're challange is fallacious because correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. Are economically depressed cities in bad shape because of Democratic control or do economically depessed areas tend to vote Democratic and populist? Statistically - urban areas tend towards the Democratic party.


Among the most economically depressed cities controlled by Democrats:

St. Louis, MO, New Orleans, Detroit, Flint, MI, Cleveland, Philadelphia. However linking it to Democratic control is tenuous since Detroit and Flint were both heavily influenced by the auto industry troubles.

Yet, in a recent survey of the ten best large cities in the U.S. we have:
San Diego (both)
Austin, TX (D), Raleigh, NC (D), Omaha, NE (D)
Mesa, AZ (R), Colorado Springs, CO (R), Virginia Beach, VA (R)

In addition, a look at the states provides a different picture - a ranking of states with the largest number of citizens living below the poverty level gives us:
# 1 Mississippi: 21.6%
# 2 Louisiana: 19.4%
# 3 New Mexico: 19.3%
# 4 District of Columbia: 18.9%
= 5 Arkansas: 17.9%
= 5 West Virginia: 17.9%
# 7 Kentucky: 17.4%
# 8 Texas: 16.6%
# 9 Alabama: 16.1%
# 10 South Carolina: 15.7%

Source: Percent below poverty level (most recent) by state

How many Democrats and how many Republicans?

A look at unemployment by state presents gives us a similar picture: Unemployment rates - Unemployment rates by state from CNNMoney

So do you really think party control has much to do with it or maybe a more complex mix of regional politics, geography, and economic conditions unrelated to politics?


Chaos

Yeah, and Boulder is Nice and Wealthy and Liberal as Hell...

I didn't say EVERY City Controlled by DemocRATS is Shit, but the ones that are have been for Generations...

And the Policies that Breed this Failure have come since and before LBJ.

Trying this Crap on a Large Scale will have the same Results on a Large Scale...

When I am Right, EVERYONE Loses...

But please, Experiment away!... You have 3/3's Control!



peace...

Studies show that the cities with the most diversity are the ones that do the best.

Unemployment statistics don't mean much because they are based on people ON unemployment. Once they run out, doesn't mean you have a job, it just means you are no longer counted.

Republican policies have probably pushed unemployment upwards of 13 or 14% and that might even be low.

Republicans are scared. Many have lost jobs. They have no education. They have been indoctrinated into believing that education is only for "smarties". And no one wants to be a "smartie".

Less than 6% of US scientists ARE Republicans.

Republicans believe it's all a "fix". That somehow competition is "skewed". The problem is that without an education, you simply CAN'T compete.

But don't worry, God will save you. Hold your breath until he does. It won't be long.

 

[bodecea]

I agree with Mrs Mal 100 percent But why not make aprents be more involved and accountable? My dept now buys all the students notebooks and calculators because the parents won't. We now have "attendance action plans" which basically relieves the parents from truancy laws. On average I get about four parents a year at conferences. Are schools enabling bad parenting or just surrendering to what's now considered."acceptable"?

All I know is that we are contributing to the entitlement mentality and its only getting worse.

In a public school environment, how do you MAKE parents be more involved?????

 

[Coyote]

A look at unemployment by state presents gives us a similar picture: Unemployment rates - Unemployment rates by state from CNNMoney

It does?

1 MICHIGAN 9.6
2 RHODE ISLAND 9.3
3 CALIFORNIA 8.4
4 SOUTH CAROLINA 8.4
5 OREGON 8.1
6 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 8
7 NEVADA 8
9 NORTH CAROLINA 7.9
10 GEORGIA 7.5

Well, I was thinking a similar mix in terms of Replican and Democrat governorship but you are right. It is different and the demographics of the states are very different.

Unemployment – states have a mix of Republican and Democrat dominated governors currently.

MICHIGAN 9.6 D (18 of 47 gov’s are D, 27 R)
RHODE ISLAND 9.3 R (32 Rep, 21 Dem)
CALIFORNIA 8.4 R (15 Dem, 22 Rep)
SOUTH CAROLINA 8.4 R (historically D until 1979 – then two D’s, 4 R’s)
OREGON 8.1 D (about even historically 21 D, 20 R)
NEVADA 8 R (13 Rep, 11 Dem)
NORTH CAROLINA 7.9 D (historicaly D)
GEORGIA 7.5 R (historically D)


In terms of number of citizens living below poverty – it’s dominated historically by Democrats.

Mississippi: 21.6% R (historically D)
Louisiana: 19.4% R (historically D, but alternating w/R since 1984)
New Mexico: 19.3% D (11 Rep, 15 Dem)
District of Columbia: 18.9%
Arkansas: 17.9% D (historically D)
West Virginia: 17.9% D (15 Rep, 18 Dem)
Kentucky: 17.4% D (8 Rep, 34 Dem)
Texas: 16.6% R (historically D)
Alabama: 16.1% R (5 Rep, historically Dem)
South Carolina: 15.7% (historically D until 1979 – then two D’s, 4 R’s)

One thing though – the historically poor states have been poor whether under Dem or Rep rule and are typically geographically challenged and/or poor in resources and primarily agricultural.

I figure cities are like microcosims of states maybe?

Either way - I think party control has far less to do with it then regional politics because the party itself differs according to region.

 

[Coyote]

I agree with Mrs Mal 100 percent But why not make aprents be more involved and accountable? My dept now buys all the students notebooks and calculators because the parents won't. We now have "attendance action plans" which basically relieves the parents from truancy laws. On average I get about four parents a year at conferences. Are schools enabling bad parenting or just surrendering to what's now considered."acceptable"?

All I know is that we are contributing to the entitlement mentality and its only getting worse.

Neither - the world has changed.

There are many more single parent families and families with both members working. The schools aren't enabling it - but you can't force parents to be good parents or be more involved.

 

[Coyote]

ALL of the Private Industry Examples you are Citing do a Better Job than the Government...

Ah, so now you're backtracking - you are admitting there IS competition possible against a "blank check" and that it is successful - more so than a government plan?

Why would you want the Government Expanding into ANY Industry in that Reality?...

Of which Reality do you speak?

As to the "Why": because there are considerable problems with the "status quo" and a government plan option might help address some of them or force more competition to address them- not the least being insurance for those who do not have it or are underinsured or get dropped when changing jobs or for pre-existing conditions.

peace...

Chaos...

 

[chanel]

How do you MAKE parents more involved? Put them in jail for neglect,

 

[Coyote]

How do you MAKE parents more involved? Put them in jail for neglect,

That sounds simple but first you have to define what you mean by "neglect" and then, you are allowing the government to intrude on family affairs to an unprecedented degree.

What do you do if you have a single mother working a series of low wage jobs where missing work might mean losing your job? You going to put her in jail because she can't attend PTA meetings?

I see your point - but no way it can be done forcefully.

 

[bodecea]

How do you MAKE parents more involved? Put them in jail for neglect,

Put a parent in jail for not making their child do their homework?

Put a parent in jail for not providing notebooks, pens, pencils, backpacks?

Put a parent in jail for not coming to parent/teacher conferences?


What exactly will you charge these parents with in your nanny state?

 

[bodecea]

How do you MAKE parents more involved? Put them in jail for neglect,

That sounds simple but first you have to define what you mean by "neglect" and then, you are allowing the government to intrude on family affairs to an unprecedented degree.

What do you do if you have a single mother working a series of low wage jobs where missing work might mean losing your job? You going to put her in jail because she can't attend PTA meetings?

I see your point - but no way it can be done forcefully.

The only way it is done at all is in private schools by making it a REQUIREMENT of acceptance. In other words, the school has choice as to who they will accept.

I do believe in school choice in the public school sector...the schools should be able to choose what students they will accept, just like private schools already do.

 

[Coyote]

How do you MAKE parents more involved? Put them in jail for neglect,

That sounds simple but first you have to define what you mean by "neglect" and then, you are allowing the government to intrude on family affairs to an unprecedented degree.

What do you do if you have a single mother working a series of low wage jobs where missing work might mean losing your job? You going to put her in jail because she can't attend PTA meetings?

I see your point - but no way it can be done forcefully.

The only way it is done at all is in private schools by making it a REQUIREMENT of acceptance. In other words, the school has choice as to who they will accept.

I do believe in school choice in the public school sector...the schools should be able to choose what students they will accept, just like private schools already do.

What happens to those no one wants to accept then?

 

[Coyote]

How do you MAKE parents more involved? Put them in jail for neglect,

Put a parent in jail for not making their child do their homework?

Put a parent in jail for not providing notebooks, pens, pencils, backpacks?

Put a parent in jail for not coming to parent/teacher conferences?


What exactly will you charge these parents with in your nanny state?

Exactly

 

[mal]

How do you MAKE parents more involved? Put them in jail for neglect,

That sounds simple but first you have to define what you mean by "neglect" and then, you are allowing the government to intrude on family affairs to an unprecedented degree.

What do you do if you have a single mother working a series of low wage jobs where missing work might mean losing your job? You going to put her in jail because she can't attend PTA meetings?

I see your point - but no way it can be done forcefully.

There is no way to Force it...

Not Constitutionally, anyway.



peace...