Conservatives don't know what insurance is or what insurance companies do.

[Doc1]

I'd like to see evidence that there is a 20% service fee. Can you document this?

According to the ACA, health insurance companies must spend at least 80% of your premium on your health care. So that means they can keep as much as 20% of your premium for themselves. It's called the 80/20 rule. Here it is, explained clearly.

That's not a "service fee" kid.

 

[Doc1]

And of course the 1% will pay for it all, right?

Well, they didn't trickle-down like we were promised they would. So if they're not going to trickle down, they should see their taxes go up.

They don't care what tax rate you pay, so why do you care what tax rate they pay?

I don't, neither do I begrudge them their money. How do I define Irony? A bunch leftwing lemmings listening to a bunch of 1%'ers scream about other 1%ers not paying enough and actually believing them when they never kick more than they have to either. LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[The Derp]

That's not a "service fee" kid.

Yes, it is. Just because it doesn't show up like that on your bill doesn't mean it's not happening. Insurance companies take as much as 20% of your premium for themselves in order to perform the service of administering reimbursement to your provider.

We are paying a 20% service fee for someone in Hartford to push a button.

I happen to think that's a rip-off, and don't see how it improves or enhances your health care.

 

[The Derp]

I don't, neither do I begrudge them their money. How do I define Irony? A bunch leftwing lemmings listening to a bunch of 1%'ers scream about other 1%ers not paying enough and actually believing them when they never kick more than they have to either. LOL

I think your Russian-to-English Google translator is broken. You should care how much they pay in taxes because it directly relates to how much you end up paying. When their taxes are cut, your taxes go up. Or your fees go up. Or your co-pay goes up. Or your tuition goes up. You pay for their tax cuts, and they give you nothing in return.

So why are you letting them do that to you?

 

[Doc1]

That's not a "service fee" kid.

Yes, it is. Just because it doesn't show up like that on your bill doesn't mean it's not happening. Insurance companies take as much as 20% of your premium for themselves in order to perform the service of administering reimbursement to your provider.

We are paying a 20% service fee for someone in Hartford to push a button.

I happen to think that's a rip-off, and don't see how it improves or enhances your health care.

LOL, just another ill-informed Lefty. You could have saved a lot of trouble by just saying it was your opinion. I hate to break this to you but your opinion doesn't mean jack. It isn't a "service fee". Yes, they have people to pay, bldgs to pay for, insurance for their own employees. Retirement accounts to pay into. Look genius, even if you go single payer you still have all of that over head only now it's been shifted to the Gov but you STILL pay for it. You don't to be able to think logically.

 

[Doc1]

I don't, neither do I begrudge them their money. How do I define Irony? A bunch leftwing lemmings listening to a bunch of 1%'ers scream about other 1%ers not paying enough and actually believing them when they never kick more than they have to either. LOL

I think your Russian-to-English Google translator is broken. You should care how much they pay in taxes because it directly relates to how much you end up paying. When their taxes are cut, your taxes go up. Or your fees go up. Or your co-pay goes up. Or your tuition goes up. You pay for their tax cuts, and they give you nothing in return.

So why are you letting them do that to you?

Here is some more logic for you. Your premise requires that you START with the ASSUMPTION that all monies earned by anyone belong to the Gov first and foremost and anything that they let you or anyone keep must be made up for by taking more from someone else. You're a good little Lefty with the usual faulty logic.

The money belongs to those that EARN it, not the Government. The Gov must not (should not) spend more than it takes in, just like you and your own finances. It's the spending stupid. It's the spending. Once more, IT'S THE SPENDING!!!! Just because YOU want free stuff doesn't mean you get it. It's time to grow up kid.

 

[The Derp]

LOL, just another ill-informed Lefty. You could have saved a lot of trouble by just saying it was your opinion. I hate to break this to you but your opinion doesn't mean jack. It isn't a "service fee". Yes, they have people to pay, bldgs to pay for, insurance for their own employees. Retirement accounts to pay into.

If you don't want to call it a "service fee", then call it something else. The point is that the insurance company takes as much as 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums for themselves. That's 20% of your premium that doesn't go to your health care. Medicare does the exact same administration that private insurers do, but does it for a fraction the overhead. So why are we paying an insurance company nearly 7 times as much as we pay Medicare to do the same ******* thing? How does privatizing the administration of reimbursements improve or enhance the health care your doctor provides? It doesn't. There is no benefit to patients to having a for-profit company do administration instead of having just Medicare doing it alone for everyone. No argument has been made in defense of the service that insurance companies provide, being superior to the service that Medicare provides. In fact, in many cases, for profit insurers use Medicare as a template for their own reimbursement processes. So what is the benefit to patients? Can you answer that?

Look genius, even if you go single payer you still have all of that over head only now it's been shifted to the Gov but you STILL pay for it. You don't to be able to think logically.

Why would it be dollar-for-dollar? An insurance company has profits to worry about first and foremost. That is what is really driving most of the costs in our system; the profit motive for insurance companies (and drug companies too). An insurance company is a for-profit entity. The government is not a for-profit entity. It's absurd to think that it's dollar-for-dollar. Medicare doesn't have profit motives, doesn't produce dividends, doesn't have executives that get outrageous compensation, and most importantly, a single payer puts the bargaining power in the hands of patients instead of drug companies and providers. You understand that, right? Medicare is prohibited from using its leverage as the nation's largest payer to bargain for cheaper prescription drugs. That was a part of Medicare Part-D. Why do you think that is?

 

[The Derp]

Here is some more logic for you. Your premise requires that you START with the ASSUMPTION that all monies earned by anyone belong to the Gov first and foremost and anything that they let you or anyone keep must be made up for by taking more from someone else. You're a good little Lefty with the usual faulty logic.

**** you, asshole. That is not my premise. That is you foisting a straw man on me in order to argue that instead of the larger point, which was that when you cut taxes for the rich, you end up having to make up that revenue gap in other places. And almost always those "other places" end up hitting the middle and lower classes harder than the top. Excise taxes, sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition, co-pays, co-insurance, etc. all have to be raised in order to make up the revenue gap that comes from cutting income taxes, particularly on the rich. You people promise that magical growth will fill that void, but it never does. Then you say we have to cut spending when the original premise was that tax cuts would produce all this revenue, there would not be a need to cut any spending (aka "tax cuts pay for themselves"). So your own argument undermines the initial argument made before. So all you've done is shift the goalposts on what is bogus policy.

And I think you know it...hence why you build straw men.

The money belongs to those that EARN it, not the Government. The Gov must not (should not) spend more than it takes in, just like you and your own finances. It's the spending stupid. It's the spending. Once more, IT'S THE SPENDING!!!! Just because YOU want free stuff doesn't mean you get it. It's time to grow up kid.

So there is no economic argument in favor of your stupid policy, so you seek to make it a highly emotional argument like the snowflake you are. BTW - your "spending/revenue" argument is bullshit too, as we see currently in Kansas where revenue collections continually fall short of revenue projections. Revenue projections made with the assumption that Brownback's tax cuts would generate enough economic activity to offset the loss in tax revenue. Guess what? THEY ******* DIDN'T. So spending was cut in order to balance the budget. And what happened then? Sales and excise taxes were raised, education funding was cut, and KS was the only state to see its uninsured rate increase post-ACA. As a result of the spending cuts, tuition costs at Kansas state colleges was increased, which forced students to take out bigger loans to pay for it.

So that's how tax cuts end up robbing from the middle class. The money they would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy instead goes to make up the funding gap that came from the education cuts, which came from the revenue cuts, which came from the tax cuts.

So tax cuts caused more borrowing.

Stupid policy from stupid people.

 

[Doc1]

LOL, just another ill-informed Lefty. You could have saved a lot of trouble by just saying it was your opinion. I hate to break this to you but your opinion doesn't mean jack. It isn't a "service fee". Yes, they have people to pay, bldgs to pay for, insurance for their own employees. Retirement accounts to pay into.

If you don't want to call it a "service fee", then call it something else. The point is that the insurance company takes as much as 20 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums for themselves. That's 20% of your premium that doesn't go to your health care. Medicare does the exact same administration that private insurers do, but does it for a fraction the overhead. So why are we paying an insurance company nearly 7 times as much as we pay Medicare to do the same ******* thing? How does privatizing the administration of reimbursements improve or enhance the health care your doctor provides? It doesn't. There is no benefit to patients to having a for-profit company do administration instead of having just Medicare doing it alone for everyone. No argument has been made in defense of the service that insurance companies provide, being superior to the service that Medicare provides. In fact, in many cases, for profit insurers use Medicare as a template for their own reimbursement processes. So what is the benefit to patients? Can you answer that?

Look genius, even if you go single payer you still have all of that over head only now it's been shifted to the Gov but you STILL pay for it. You don't to be able to think logically.

Why would it be dollar-for-dollar? An insurance company has profits to worry about first and foremost. That is what is really driving most of the costs in our system; the profit motive for insurance companies (and drug companies too). An insurance company is a for-profit entity. The government is not a for-profit entity. It's absurd to think that it's dollar-for-dollar. Medicare doesn't have profit motives, doesn't produce dividends, doesn't have executives that get outrageous compensation, and most importantly, a single payer puts the bargaining power in the hands of patients instead of drug companies and providers. You understand that, right? Medicare is prohibited from using its leverage as the nation's largest payer to bargain for cheaper prescription drugs. That was a part of Medicare Part-D. Why do you think that is?

Good lord. MANY insurance Companies are non-profit. BCBS in many states is a non-profit. Educate yourself.

"Medicare doesn't have profit motives"

No, but the providers do. What's absurd is that you cannot connect the dots that clearly tell that all your doing is cost shifting. That tells me you've never run a business. Lose the emotion son, it makes you say silly things. You do know that Gov subsidizes the Companies that sell the supplemental plans don't you?

"So what is the benefit to patients? Can you answer that?"

It's kinda cute that you think the Gov is an efficient entity. Clearly you've never been in the Military either, it's clear you've never been treated in a VA Faci No Government anywhere is more efficient than a privately run business. ESPECIALLY one you forced to do business on 20 cents of every dollar they take in. The Gov is one of the most inefficient entities that has ever existed.

 

[Doc1]

Here is some more logic for you. Your premise requires that you START with the ASSUMPTION that all monies earned by anyone belong to the Gov first and foremost and anything that they let you or anyone keep must be made up for by taking more from someone else. You're a good little Lefty with the usual faulty logic.

**** you, asshole. That is not my premise. That is you foisting a straw man on me in order to argue that instead of the larger point, which was that when you cut taxes for the rich, you end up having to make up that revenue gap in other places. And almost always those "other places" end up hitting the middle and lower classes harder than the top. Excise taxes, sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition, co-pays, co-insurance, etc. all have to be raised in order to make up the revenue gap that comes from cutting income taxes, particularly on the rich. You people promise that magical growth will fill that void, but it never does. Then you say we have to cut spending when the original premise was that tax cuts would produce all this revenue, there would not be a need to cut any spending (aka "tax cuts pay for themselves"). So your own argument undermines the initial argument made before. So all you've done is shift the goalposts on what is bogus policy.

And I think you know it...hence why you build straw men.

The money belongs to those that EARN it, not the Government. The Gov must not (should not) spend more than it takes in, just like you and your own finances. It's the spending stupid. It's the spending. Once more, IT'S THE SPENDING!!!! Just because YOU want free stuff doesn't mean you get it. It's time to grow up kid.

So there is no economic argument in favor of your stupid policy, so you seek to make it a highly emotional argument like the snowflake you are. BTW - your "spending/revenue" argument is bullshit too, as we see currently in Kansas where revenue collections continually fall short of revenue projections. Revenue projections made with the assumption that Brownback's tax cuts would generate enough economic activity to offset the loss in tax revenue. Guess what? THEY ******* DIDN'T. So spending was cut in order to balance the budget. And what happened then? Sales and excise taxes were raised, education funding was cut, and KS was the only state to see its uninsured rate increase post-ACA. As a result of the spending cuts, tuition costs at Kansas state colleges was increased, which forced students to take out bigger loans to pay for it.

So that's how tax cuts end up robbing from the middle class. The money they would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy instead goes to make up the funding gap that came from the education cuts, which came from the revenue cuts, which came from the tax cuts.

So tax cuts caused more borrowing.

Stupid policy from stupid people.

"**** you, asshole. That is not my premise."

Of course it's your premise, you just aren't intelligent enough to see it, or honest enough to admit it if you did.

"revenue gap"

Government speak for "it's our money". Typing those words shows exactly how you think, an idiot spends too much and then says " I had a revenue gap". Code for I can't cut spending so I'll just take more of other people's money. You can't run your household budget that and neither can the Gov. Hence we are 20 trillion in debt. LOL, shifted the goal posts? I'll say it again komrade, it's the spending. You simply can't have everything you want, weren't you taught that when you were little?

"Then you say we have to cut spending when the original premise was that tax cuts would produce all this revenue, there would not be a need to cut any spending (aka "tax cuts pay for themselves"). So your own argument undermines the initial argument made before. So all you've done is shift the goalposts on what is bogus policy. "

This is you trying to put words in my mouth and then claim I shifted the "goal posts", sorry son those are your words and will never be able to make me lose focus by deflecting.

"BTW - your "spending/revenue" argument is bullshit too, as we see currently in Kansas where revenue collections continually fall short of revenue projections"

LOL, that's EXACTLY my argument. If you spend more than you have you don't just automatically get more. You cut spending. You are clearly economically illiterate.

"Revenue projections made with the assumption that Brownback's tax cuts would generate enough economic activity to offset the loss in tax revenue."

There you go deflecting again. It's the spending kid, plain and simple.

". As a result of the spending cuts, tuition costs at Kansas state colleges was increased, which forced students to take out bigger loans to pay for it."

Do you always rant like a child when you don't get what you want? Nobody owes you a thing kid, most of who are Adults understand that concept.

"So tax cuts caused more borrowing."

Just more "I want it, you owe it to me, so give it to me". Again child, you don't get everything you want, you never will. Didn't daddy and mommy teach you that?

 

[The Derp]

Good lord. MANY insurance Companies are non-profit. BCBS in many states is a non-profit. Educate yourself.

Wow man...BCBS in most states is for-profit. BCBS is a federation of 36 health insurance companies, with Anthem being the largest (and also for-profit). Most of BCBS' 103 million enrollees are enrolled in for-profit insurance companies. 8 of the companies (and the majority of enrollees) are publicly-traded. BCBS is a licensor, licensing out to regional companies, many of whom are for-profit insurers, to be part of the BCBS federation.

No, but the providers do. What's absurd is that you cannot connect the dots that clearly tell that all your doing is cost shifting. That tells me you've never run a business. Lose the emotion son, it makes you say silly things. You do know that Gov subsidizes the Companies that sell the supplemental plans don't you?

So how would a single-payer plan affect providers? If anything, it would force providers to improve outcomes since the playing field is leveled with only one payer (Medicare in this example), setting one reimbursement rate. Then providers must compete with one another in order to get the most patients. So how do providers compete with one another? By improving outcomes. Right now, providers don't really have an incentive to improve outcomes.

And yes, the reason there are Medicare supplements is simply because the program is not funded enough. If Medicare was funded enough, there would be no need for supplemental plans. And not only that, but the supplemental plans themselves also cause problems; like Medicare Part-D. When it was passed in 2003 by Conservatives, they prohibited Medicare from using its leverage to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. Why? Would it have anything to do with the massive amounts of campaign contributions made by big Pharma during the 2004 election? Well, medical "professionals" (i.e. executives) were the #5 overall contributor to Bush's 2004 campaign. This, one year after he passed a bill that allowed drug companies to keep gouging us.

It's kinda cute that you think the Gov is an efficient entity. Clearly you've never been in the Military either, it's clear you've never been treated in a VA Faci No Government anywhere is more efficient than a privately run business. ESPECIALLY one you forced to do business on 20 cents of every dollar they take in. The Gov is one of the most inefficient entities that has ever existed.

Completely untrue and not supported by any fact. Even personal experience does not help you here because anyone who has worked for a major corporation knows that they are wildly inefficient all the time.

As far as the VA goes, it is the highest-rated patient satisfaction of any insurance plan there is, followed by Medicare, followed by Medicaid. Your private insurance ranks at the bottom of patient satisfaction surveys, like this one from Gallup from 2015:

What's sad is that you bought into the self-fulfilling prophecy of Conservative governance; that Conservatives believe government is the problem, then get elected and prove it.

 

[The Derp]

Of course it's your premise, you just aren't intelligent enough to see it, or honest enough to admit it if you did.

No, you do that because you have to construct straw men in order to stay relevant in the debate. Which is fine...it's the hallmark of a desperate person. I don't know from where or how you reached that conclusion, but I do know you didn't reach it on your own. That's for ******* sure. So when you cannot argue what it is we are debating, you just invent a position, foist it on me, that way you don't have to be held to account for your belief system, which is what we are talking about; namely, that cutting taxes is a net good thing. It's not. We all know it's not. You know it's not, yet you argue it anyway. Why? Are you that much of an egomaniac?

Government speak for "it's our money". Typing those words shows exactly how you think, an idiot spends too much and then says " I had a revenue gap". Code for I can't cut spending so I'll just take more of other people's money. You can't run your household budget that and neither can the Gov. Hence we are 20 trillion in debt. LOL, shifted the goal posts? I'll say it again komrade, it's the spending. You simply can't have everything you want, weren't you taught that when you were little?

So we had a balanced budget in 2000...one that produced a surplus. Then you cut taxes in 2001, and suddenly that record surplus was turned into record deficits. From 2000-2003, revenue was cut by 14%, yet spending grew by just 12%. So it was the tax cuts that caused the deficits to appear. Tax cuts, we were promised, would pay for themselves. Guess what? They didn't.

And as for the $20T debt, can you please explain to me why it's a big deal to you when it wasn't a big deal 17 years ago? Or isn't a big deal today now that Republicans are in control? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question with that one. The debt has no effect on GDP (you all lied and tried to say it did, hence we got Sequestration), it has no effect on our borrowing rates (as they have remained historically low), it has no effect on inflation (which has remained steady and constant). So what is it about the debt that concerns you so much? Or is it just you posturing on the debt because you have absolutely no good economic arguments to make in favor of the belief system to which you have subscribed?

This is you trying to put words in my mouth and then claim I shifted the "goal posts", sorry son those are your words and will never be able to make me lose focus by deflecting.

Ok, so if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs, don't create growth, and only cause deficits and debt to appear, then why do them at all? Clearly, there is no economic benefit to them. So why are you arguing on their behalf? You and I both know they don't do anything other than manufacture deficits and debt...which you were screeching about one paragraph ago. So explain this to me; you complain about deficits and debt, and your solution is to cut taxes which only further creates deficits and debt. So how is your argument not masturbation? You are complaining about the very thing your policy causes.

LOL, that's EXACTLY my argument. If you spend more than you have you don't just automatically get more. You cut spending. You are clearly economically illiterate.

Ahhh, but here's the thing, moron, the promise made by those arguing your position was that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending because the tax cuts would generate all this economic activity that the resulting revenues would pay for what was lost. Of course, that's a bullshit promise that has consistently been proven wrong over and over the last 37 years. Why would it suddenly start doing the opposite now? You all promised that tax cuts would be this magical thing that would increase economic activity, growth, etc....only it never does. All it does is manufacture deficits and debt that are then used as an excuse to cut the spending you are ideologically opposed to but have no chance to repeal through legislation because you lack the courage and support to do it. So you very cynically attack the budget to force deficits that you then posture about in order to achieve the agenda of cutting social spending.

Hard to see how deliberately attacking the budget in order to push through an ideological agenda isn't fiscal terrorism.

There you go deflecting again. It's the spending kid, plain and simple.

No, no, no...again, Brownback and Laffer and the Conservatives made the promise that his tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline" into the arm of Kansas' economy. They weren't. So all those revenue projections that were made based on that fantasy were not met, which means the tax cuts did not fulfill their promise or duty or whatever.

o you always rant like a child when you don't get what you want? Nobody owes you a thing kid, most of who are Adults understand that concept.

**** you, loser. I like how you completely avoid the factual reality of the consequences of your policy. Wait, did I say "like"? I meant, "I ******* hate". So when faced with the real-world issues that arise from your flawed policy, your response is to act like a ******* child? Get over yourself.

Just more "I want it, you owe it to me, so give it to me". Again child, you don't get everything you want, you never will. Didn't daddy and mommy teach you that?

There used to be a time when you could attend a state university or college for nothing or next-to-nothing. As recent as 20 years ago, that was the case. But then something happened. That something was the tax cut-fever that gripped this country, pushed by know-nothings like you who could really care less about balancing budgets and economic growth and were instead looking for a way to cut social spending you are ideologically opposed to. So all these states cut taxes. When those tax cuts failed to meet revenue projections, the states all started raising tuition costs. So what used to cost someone $2K to attend a state school for one year, now costs nearly 5 times that because states cut funding for education, which caused tuition to rise, which caused students to borrow more.

I know that you oppose people being educated and with good reason; the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to buy your bullshit.

 

[GHook93]

This much is clear in the reform they have finally proposed, after a 7 year wait. Their bill does nothing to increase coverage or make coverage any more affordable. In fact, their bill would make coverage less affordable because it eliminates the federal protections for pre-existing conditions, turning it over to the states...because I guess people get a different kind of breast cancer in Oklahoma than they do in Massachusetts?

Change your name to The Dope.

Few people like the bill from either side of the isle, but either way only a blind partisan fool would not see that Obaminationcare is imploding. Big carrier after big carrier is pulling out of Obamacare.

I mean take Iowa for instances. In most parts of the state there is only one insurer and that insurer is probably pulling out! If that happens most Iowans won't even have any insurers to choose from. This is happening across the country


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Derp]

Few people like the bill from either side of the isle, but either way only a blind partisan fool would not see that Obaminationcare is imploding. Big carrier after big carrier is pulling out of Obamacare.

Well, their reasons for doing so are a bit shady. For instance, Aetna said they were pulling out of some exchanges because of the law, but they lied. They were pulling out of the exchanges because they weren't allowed to merge with Humana. They just said it was the former reason and it took a judge to smack them down and expose the lie:

Judge: Aetna lied about quitting Obamacare
A federal judge has ruled that Aetna wasn't being truthful when the health insurer said last summer that its decision to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges was strictly a business decision triggered by mounting losses.​

So Aetna was bullshitting...could that mean other insurers were/are bullshitting too? Probably. Not sure why anyone would want to take their words for it anymore, but whatever...

Obamacare did one thing very well; it exposed how fundamentally flawed privatizing the administration of reimbursements actually is, and how much it adds to our overall health care costs while not producing better outcomes. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care. The next closest nation spends about 10% of their GDP on health care. We are routinely beaten by those single-payer nations in nearly every single health metric there is including cost and wait times. As you can see below, all forms of government-provided/run insurance get higher satisfaction ratings than all forms of private insurance. If government-run anything is so bad, how do you account for the below?

I mean take Iowa for instances. In most parts of the state there is only one insurer and that insurer is probably pulling out! If that happens most Iowans won't even have any insurers to choose from. This is happening across the country

Well, duh...private insurance is not sustainable as a business model if it has to cover people with pre-existing conditions. So you really only have two ways you can go from here:

1. Single payer
2. Return to allowing insurers to use pre-existing conditions

Those are the only two options where we can go from here. There is no other solution that hasn't already been tried.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For profit makes everything cheaper

No it doesn't.

yes it does because there is a life and death incentive to lower price and raise quality. Under socialism there is no such incentive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's not a "service fee" kid.

Yes, it is. Just because it doesn't show up like that on your bill doesn't mean it's not happening. Insurance companies take as much as 20% of your premium for themselves in order to perform the service of administering reimbursement to your provider.

We are paying a 20% service fee for someone in Hartford to push a button.

I happen to think that's a rip-off, and don't see how it improves or enhances your health care.

any capitalist business takes all the fees necessary to cover all its costs and thus capitalist countries are far wealthier than socialist countries. Ever heard of East/West Germany? This is because capitalism provides a life and death incentive to lower costs and raise quality.

A liberal is a liberal simply because he lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

..private insurance is not sustainable as a business model if it has to cover people with pre-existing conditions. .

why not?? It would cost more but there is no reason why insurance companies would not be happy to sell it to you/[/QUOTE]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Gov is one of the most inefficient entities that has ever existed.

yes a liberal govt monopoly with no prospect of competition is the worst and most deadly of all and a yet that is exactly what liberals want.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. As you can see below, all forms of government-provided/run insurance get higher satisfaction ratings than all forms of private insurance. If government-run anything is so bad, how do you account for the below?

private insurance is not capitalist insurance. When you have capitalist insurance there is life and death competition to produce satisfied customers. 1+1=2