Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[mudwhistle]

Anyone who has worked inside government or a private company can name the bugs in the system.
Private companies screw over their work force to give the public better goods and services whereas government has no incentive to serve because the customer has to come to them. This makes anything government does more expensive and inefficient,

 

[Billy000]

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

Mere assertion fallacy! Rabbi Rules!

No, Billy. None of those things run efficiently. There are plenty of people here who actually worked in some of those departments and they'll be the first to tell you they are inefficient. Nothing runs perfectly is true but irrelevant. Our standard is not perfect but efficient. Focus on the debate.

You are such a moron. The topic at hand is whether or not gov or private industry should run our healthcare system.

 

[Jarhead]

I dont know who "you people" is. I guess its people who are well informed. That would cut you out. You dont have a ******* clue and get pwned so bad in your own threads you bail.

"Pwned" by who exactly? I've countered every point that was more than 2-3 sentences

That's an outright lie.

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

 

[Jarhead]

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

Mere assertion fallacy! Rabbi Rules!

No, Billy. None of those things run efficiently. There are plenty of people here who actually worked in some of those departments and they'll be the first to tell you they are inefficient. Nothing runs perfectly is true but irrelevant. Our standard is not perfect but efficient. Focus on the debate.

You are such a moron. The topic at hand is whether or not gov or private industry should run our healthcare system.

It was your thread.

And you call him a moron?

Your question was.....

Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run healthcare....

And we answered it.

Now...who is the moron?

 

[Billy000]

"Pwned" by who exactly? I've countered every point that was more than 2-3 sentences

That's an outright lie.

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

 

[Billy000]

K

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

Mere assertion fallacy! Rabbi Rules!

No, Billy. None of those things run efficiently. There are plenty of people here who actually worked in some of those departments and they'll be the first to tell you they are inefficient. Nothing runs perfectly is true but irrelevant. Our standard is not perfect but efficient. Focus on the debate.

You are such a moron. The topic at hand is whether or not gov or private industry should run our healthcare system.

It was your thread.

And you call him a moron?

Your question was.....

Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run healthcare....

And we answered it.

Now...who is the moron?

Um no you didn't. You were comparing anecdotal cases between gov and the private sector and passed it off as evidence. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Jarhead]

That's an outright lie.

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

Jesus Christ. This whole thread is filled with evidence.

The website cost 600 million dollars. ALREADY costs went up with that alone. It could have been developed for 1/10 of that. 60 million dollars would develop a dam good web site.

Enough said.

Cant debate with a closed minded child like yourself.

 

[Jarhead]

K

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

Mere assertion fallacy! Rabbi Rules!

No, Billy. None of those things run efficiently. There are plenty of people here who actually worked in some of those departments and they'll be the first to tell you they are inefficient. Nothing runs perfectly is true but irrelevant. Our standard is not perfect but efficient. Focus on the debate.

You are such a moron. The topic at hand is whether or not gov or private industry should run our healthcare system.

It was your thread.

And you call him a moron?

Your question was.....

Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run healthcare....

And we answered it.

Now...who is the moron?

Um no you didn't. You were comparing anecdotal cases between gov and the private sector and passed it off as evidence. It doesn't work like that.

you are a fool.

Go away.

 

[Billy000]

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

Jesus Christ. This whole thread is filled with evidence.

The website cost 600 million dollars. ALREADY costs went up with that alone. It could have been developed for 1/10 of that. 60 million dollars would develop a dam good web site.

Enough said.

Cant debate with a closed minded child like yourself.

Again you can't take an anecdotal case and apply it to a broad conclusion about the nature of government. That is fallacy.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's an outright lie.

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

The evidence is historically evident.

Government does not compete in a market economy. It takes our money and decides how it should be spent. If you have nearly half of the population not contributing to the fund they start using benefits for the slightest reasons. Reasons they wouldn't if they had to pay for it. Eventually costs skyrocket and benefits either have to be cut or taxes raised or both. Short-sighted regulations designed by amateurs adds to the problem.

 

[kaz]

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

LOL, so not being able to argue it is a solid argument?

 

[The Rabbi]

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

Mere assertion fallacy! Rabbi Rules!

No, Billy. None of those things run efficiently. There are plenty of people here who actually worked in some of those departments and they'll be the first to tell you they are inefficient. Nothing runs perfectly is true but irrelevant. Our standard is not perfect but efficient. Focus on the debate.

You are such a moron. The topic at hand is whether or not gov or private industry should run our healthcare system.

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

Billy, the argument is that gov't should not run healthcare because it is inefficient. Try to keep up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

Jesus Christ. This whole thread is filled with evidence.

The website cost 600 million dollars. ALREADY costs went up with that alone. It could have been developed for 1/10 of that. 60 million dollars would develop a dam good web site.

Enough said.

Cant debate with a closed minded child like yourself.

Again you can't take an anecdotal case and apply it to a broad conclusion about the nature of government. That is fallacy.

Add up enough examples and you get evidence.
But there are no examples of government doing something efficiently. You have yet to post one.

 

[Listening]

That's an outright lie.

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

He just gave it to you. There is no certainty in anything. But there is a good reason to believe that the unchecked bloated systems of the U.S. Federal government are an indication of the way health care would go.

Beyond that, it simply does not make sense to run one system for 310,000,000 people.

You dickweeds constantly point at European systems....like Denmark. How big is Denmark ? How big is Florida ?

But no.....you have to have your super system that is the equivalent of a big cow paddy.

 

[Billy000]

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

Jesus Christ. This whole thread is filled with evidence.

The website cost 600 million dollars. ALREADY costs went up with that alone. It could have been developed for 1/10 of that. 60 million dollars would develop a dam good web site.

Enough said.

Cant debate with a closed minded child like yourself.

Again you can't take an anecdotal case and apply it to a broad conclusion about the nature of government. That is fallacy.

Add up enough examples and you get evidence.
But there are no examples of government doing something efficiently. You have yet to post one.

Not anyone especially you have "added up examples". And once again you are missing the point. None of you have proven that a private institution can run our healthcare system better. The fact that gov is not perfect means dick if private industry isn't perfect either.

 

[Billy000]

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

He just gave it to you. There is no certainty in anything. But there is a good reason to believe that the unchecked bloated systems of the U.S. Federal government are an indication of the way health care would go.

Beyond that, it simply does not make sense to run one system for 310,000,000 people.

You dickweeds constantly point at European systems....like Denmark. How big is Denmark ? How big is Florida ?

But no.....you have to have your super system that is the equivalent of a big cow paddy.

In order to make the argument that costs would go up would be you would provide relevant data.There really isn't a way to predict such a thing because we do not have relevant information to compare it to. You people just rely on this baseless propaganda that gov is inherently useless.

 

[Redfish]

That's an outright lie.

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Is it that you can't read, don't want to read or have poor reading comprehension skills?

I did not say "the Obama care web site didn't work"

What I said was that the ACA website (government contracted) that is designed to cater to 300 million people in one country cost 600 million dollars while the Amazon website (privately contracted) that is designed to cater to billions of people over 7 continents cost a fraction of that.

That is a clear example of how the US government is by no means cost efficient.

I then asked you to look into the history of the US government and the iron business....when back in the 30's they decided it would be more cost effective to produce its own iron for military vehicles than to purchase it from private industry. When all was said and done, they found it cost over twice as much to produce it on their own than to purchase it from private industry.

Again, a clear example of how government is not nearly as cost efficient as private industry.

I then pointed out how the USPS overnight delivery has been operating at a loss since its inception while Fed Ex and UPS turn a profit on a yearly basis.

And your response to those examples were

1) Not true
2) Apples to oranges
3) not applicable...

and now...

4) Anecdotal.

But still wont back it up.

In other words....you don't want us to answer your original question of this thread...for when we do you simply cast it off as a non answer.

Except that there are plenty of examples of government running efficiently. Our military, CIA, and FBI have all fun great since their inception. Perfectly? No. Nothing runs perfectly.

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

its already happening. premiums are up, deductibles are up, coverage is down.

 

[Redfish]

it depends on what you refer to as efficiently.

If cost is not an issue, one can make anything run efficiently.

Our military is efficient as it pertains to its ability as a military......the personnel are top notch, the training is matched by none and the technology is state of the art.

But the cost to run it? You can buy ammo privately for half of what the military spends.

There is truth to the 750 dollar latrine seat.

The whole point is......healthcare is going to wind up costing the people a lot more with government intervention. When government intervenes, costs always go up.

Bottom line.......you asked a question....we answered.

You did not like the answers and you could not refute them.

So you are now changing the subject.

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

Jesus Christ. This whole thread is filled with evidence.

The website cost 600 million dollars. ALREADY costs went up with that alone. It could have been developed for 1/10 of that. 60 million dollars would develop a dam good web site.

Enough said.

Cant debate with a closed minded child like yourself.

Again you can't take an anecdotal case and apply it to a broad conclusion about the nature of government. That is fallacy.

Add up enough examples and you get evidence.
But there are no examples of government doing something efficiently. You have yet to post one.

Not anyone especially you have "added up examples". And once again you are missing the point. None of you have proven that a private institution can run our healthcare system better. The fact that gov is not perfect means dick if private industry isn't perfect either.

private industry has run it just fine for over 200 years. there was no healthcare crisis in the USA. no one was denied medical treatment before obozocare.

ACA was not about fixing healthcare. it was a socialist takeover of 1/5 or our economy.

 

[Billy000]

Where is your evidence that costs would "go way up"? Just because something sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is true.

Jesus Christ. This whole thread is filled with evidence.

The website cost 600 million dollars. ALREADY costs went up with that alone. It could have been developed for 1/10 of that. 60 million dollars would develop a dam good web site.

Enough said.

Cant debate with a closed minded child like yourself.

Again you can't take an anecdotal case and apply it to a broad conclusion about the nature of government. That is fallacy.

Add up enough examples and you get evidence.
But there are no examples of government doing something efficiently. You have yet to post one.

Not anyone especially you have "added up examples". And once again you are missing the point. None of you have proven that a private institution can run our healthcare system better. The fact that gov is not perfect means dick if private industry isn't perfect either.

private industry has run it just fine for over 200 years. there was no healthcare crisis in the USA. no one was denied medical treatment before obozocare.

ACA was not about fixing healthcare. it was a socialist takeover of 1/5 or our economy.

You're an idiot. 10s of millions of people can't afford basic cancer treatment and it doesn't stop there.

 

[asterism]

This is why Democrats really need to leave economics to grown ups. Yes, it is the job of CEOs to satisfy their bosses, the owners of the company, the shareholders. They work for them.

Now here's the key question, Skippy, who do the CEOs have to satisfy to make money for the shareholders? LOL, you thought you found a conflict, you found complete synergy. You grasp capitalism not at all. Capitalism is everyone wins because everyone's interests are aligned. Marxism is where politicians win.

And why again is it exactly you object to the term "Marxist," Comrade?

You people know nothing about economics. You just listen to what republicans tell you. You people believe in trickle down economics which is one of the biggest political lies of all time.

I dont know who "you people" is. I guess its people who are well informed. That would cut you out. You dont have a ******* clue and get pwned so bad in your own threads you bail.

"Pwned" by who exactly? I've countered every point that was more than 2-3 sentences

That's an outright lie.

I gave you very solid arguments to your premise early on in this thread....and the only responses you would offer were

1) That's not true
2) That's not applicable
3) That's apples to oranges

But you never backed up your refutes.

So now you are not only closed minded....but you are a liar as well

Christ all you did was give anecdotal cases that were barely relevant to the conversation. You can't say shit like "well the ObamaCare website didn't work" and expect me to believe gov can't run our healthcare system. That's idiotic. You can't expect me to argue that.

Why not?

If they can't even get their website working in a reasonable time what makes them good at anything else?