RDD_1210
Forms his own opinions
- May 13, 2010
- 18,981
- 1,817
- 265
We comprehend the difference just fine. Ignoring the topic of government control and wealth redistribution and just addressing your point on there still being private insurance, there are three obvious issues:
1) The public option doesn't need to make money, private carriers do. The government can just tax more to pay for it. How can private carriers compete with that? They will go out of business because they have to make a profit, they can't just confiscate someone's money as government can.
If private insurance companies are so wonderful and offered a great product they wouldn't have to fear a government option. According to you guys private companies ALWAYS do things better then government programs, right? Sooo, the only people who would choose a government plan are those who wanted a low cost, no frills plan. Is FedEx or UPS in danger of being put of business by the post office?
And if hoards of people did choose the public option, what does that tell you about the quality of the offering of private insurance??
Actually I don't say private companies always do better then government options. I say...free markets...always do better then government options. Government healthcare is not choice, it is removal of choice. Private companies that are regulated by government are no better then government. It's not the private that makes them better, it's the free. Though while "private" doesn't make markets better, it does make "charity" better.
Providing a public option is actually the exact opposite of removal of choice. It's adding another choice in to the market. The very thing you seem to be advocating for with your "free market".