The Public Option trade-off

[manifold]

Putting aside the obvious politicking and deliberate obfuscation this issue is laden with, there remains a very fundamental trade-off that ought to be considered reasonably and rationally before one's mind is made up on the matter.

As I see it, a very fundamental role of government in a mostly capitalist, free-market environment, is to be the referee. To be the final arbiter of fairness, equity and equality.

It is completely disengenuous and intellectually dishonest to dismiss the very real truth resident in the fact that when the referee is also a competitor, a potential conflict of interest arises. Every time, without exception.

And this is precisely the trade-off associated with a healthcare public option. Implement a public option and you necessarily introduce a potential conflict of interest and all the baggage that comes with it.

So the question is, is it really worth it? Is it something that we really cannot get by without?

My default position on these types of decisions is always against, unless and until I'm convinced of an absolute need.

I hereby challenge those in favor of the public option to convince me that such a need truly exists.

 

[Oddball]

You're just a shill for Big Insurance!

 

[manifold]

About the only thing I abhor more than big gubmint is big gubmint in the pocket of big insurance.

 

[The Rabbi]

You would have to take the govt at its word that this is the goal.
I dont think it is the goal. I am pretty persuaded that the goal is single payer "universal" health care ala Sweden. This is just the politically-feasible way to get it done.

 

[Ravi]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
National Flood Insurance
Postal Service
Military

Thanks.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

No, but I can illustrate that every single one of them if the were private endeavors would have:

a. Been discharged in bankruptcy,
b. Landed their custodians in jail.

 

[Ravi]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

No, but I can illustrate that every single one of them if the were private endeavors would have:

a. Been discharged in bankruptcy,
b. Landed their custodians in jail.

So would have many banks of late.

But thanks for admitting that you cannot.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

One's gotta love it.. we have this administration, and this congress, wanting to berate private industry and for mismanagement while they propose new programs funded by worthless, printed money and while sitting on all their other bankrupt programs and unfunded liabiities.

Yeah, I'm onboard! What could go wrong??

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

But thanks for admitting that you cannot

LOL!!! What are you, five? The ole "I know you are but what am I" response?? Fucking hilarious!!!

WTF do banks have to do with your premise or my response???

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I say Chevy Camaro and you say grilled cheese sandwich!!!

 

[Ravi]

But thanks for admitting that you cannot

LOL!!! What are you, five? The ole "I know you are but what am I" response?? Fucking hilarious!!!

WTF do banks have to do with your premise or my response???

I asked a question and you didn't answer it. What do you want, a gold star?

 

[manifold]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
National Flood Insurance
Postal Service
Military

Thanks.

These programs do not directly compete in the open market. To suggest that a healthcare public option is in no way precedent setting is to be incredibly dense. No offense.

 

[Ravi]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
National Flood Insurance
Postal Service
Military

Thanks.

These programs do not directly compete in the open market. To suggest that a healthcare public option is in no way precedent setting is to be incredibly dense. No offense.

That's not what I said...

 

[manifold]

Ravi,

I challenged proponents of a public option to demonstrate it's need.

If you are not up to the challenge, then just say so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
National Flood Insurance
Postal Service
Military

Thanks.

Easy.
Social Security: Crowded out private pension plans and sellers of annuities.
Medicare/Medicade: Should be obvious
National Flood Ins: Property and casualty insurers
Postal service: competing letter carriers

The military is the only exception because it cannot be done by private business. But even there Congress used to give letters of marque and reprisal. I think by treaty they no longer do so. So that lucrative venture was eliminated by gov't competition.

 

[manifold]

I'm honestly a little surprised by the fact that I haven't seen one single, sincere attempt to validate a need for a public option. With as many here who allegedly support it, I would have thought that at least a couple of them might have already considered this by now.

And now reading that back I feel a bit naive for being surprised.

 

[Ravi]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
National Flood Insurance
Postal Service
Military

Thanks.

Easy.
Social Security: Crowded out private pension plans and sellers of annuities.
Medicare/Medicade: Should be obvious
National Flood Ins: Property and casualty insurers
Postal service: competing letter carriers

The military is the only exception because it cannot be done by private business. But even there Congress used to give letters of marque and reprisal. I think by treaty they no longer do so. So that lucrative venture was eliminated by gov't competition.

And yet there are still private pension plans and sellers of annuities, there are still property insurers and there are still alternates to the USPS - FedEX and UPS.

Not sure what should be obvious about Medicare since insurance companies still manage to sell policies to seniors.

 

[Ravi]

I'm honestly a little surprised by the fact that I haven't seen one single, sincere attempt to validate a need for a public option. With as many here who allegedly support it, I would have thought that at least a couple of them might have already considered this by now.

And now reading that back I feel a bit naive for being surprised.

Hardly anyone reads threads authored by you.

And you poisoned the well with your phrasing of the question.

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you illustrate the conflict of interest that comes with these government programs?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
National Flood Insurance
Postal Service
Military

Thanks.

Easy.
Social Security: Crowded out private pension plans and sellers of annuities.
Medicare/Medicade: Should be obvious
National Flood Ins: Property and casualty insurers
Postal service: competing letter carriers

The military is the only exception because it cannot be done by private business. But even there Congress used to give letters of marque and reprisal. I think by treaty they no longer do so. So that lucrative venture was eliminated by gov't competition.

And yet there are still private pension plans and sellers of annuities, there are still property insurers and there are still alternates to the USPS - FedEX and UPS.

Not sure what should be obvious about Medicare since insurance companies still manage to sell policies to seniors.

But in those specific areas.

What was your point again??

 

[manifold]

I'm honestly a little surprised by the fact that I haven't seen one single, sincere attempt to validate a need for a public option. With as many here who allegedly support it, I would have thought that at least a couple of them might have already considered this by now.

And now reading that back I feel a bit naive for being surprised.

Hardly anyone reads threads authored by you.

And you poisoned the well with your phrasing of the question.

I accept your admission that you cannot justify the need for a public option.