At 06:43 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship
<ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn!
Blankenship <ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all
the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined
with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the
compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will
be that it will be like the things government does well instead of
the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate
almost everyone who has to deal with them . . .
Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this
discussion. That would ruin everything.
In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That
question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal
government does run some things very efficiently and some of those
things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given
inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers.
What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away
anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for
the
same reason.
Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the
public
hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private
funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers
in short order.
C.
I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part
of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper
for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the
"public option" so after a little while most of the people who now
have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so
the private insurance companies go out of business, making the
public option no longer an "option" for anyone unable to pay for all
of their medical care out of their own pockets and then in the name
of government cost-cutting the now only health-care provider starts
cutting corners until the quality of service compares with the DMV
and IRS, but there's no place else to go . . .
. . . ronn! :)
Is that any better than the current system of for-profit insurers
sponsored by for-profit employers, both of whom profit most if neither
pays for anything they can possibly avoid?
I'm guessing you meant "worse" rather than
"better," but to answer your question as it was written
That's precisely what lots of people
wonder. Neither government nor business has a
record that exactly encourages optimism.
. . . ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
