President Obama Healthcare Speech

[TheGame]

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

The problem is, if we switch to a free market first, there's no telling what the results will be. Giving companies more freedom and money doesn't nessicarily mean they'd use it to the greater good of the country. Ask George W. Bush.

I'd rather see more controlled and planned out results, then just taking the leash off of private insurers.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

The problem is, if we switch to a free market first, there's no telling what the results will be.

And we know what the results of a government run plan will be? Every question we can ask of private solutions we can easily ask of government solutions.

If we wat to make judgments based history and evidence there is far more failure shown in government run entitlements than privately run businesses. At least private business has examples of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. I have yet to see a government entitlement that does this and I'd honestly love to know of one if anyone can point one out. Perhaps I'm simply ignorant on the subject. Medicare is bleeding money like crazy, social security is on the road to death and our public schools spend more per student than any other country per for mediocre results (and for the record I'm a public school supporter, but the system needs to be blown up).

But most importantly a system based on free markets (not 100% free market, as that has as many pitfalls as 100% government) is a REVERSIBLE path if it doesn't work. The current bills are essentially designed to overcome the speed-bump that is private care, and once government care is the norm, it will be virtually impossible to reverse, and we'll simply tolerate failure. Entitlements don't go away, and they are rarely improved when they prove to be at best inefficient and wasteful, regardless of how poorly they run or how much everyone recognizes the problem.

I'll choose the option that is reversible first, rather than the entitlement that in practice will likely not be.

[TheGame]

I don't think either option is reverseable. Its not like they can open up the market 5 years and say "Oops, that didn't work.. everyone drop your national insurance, we're going back to the old way!". In both cases, the only thing they can do is build onto the ideas that they had offered if it fails.

I think in one option you trust that private insurance companies will lower the rates, and in the other option you trust that the government will lower rates. But neither way is really reverseable.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I don't think either option is reverseable. Its not like they can open up the market 5 years and say "Oops, that didn't work.. everyone drop your national insurance, we're going back to the old way!". In both cases, the only thing they can do is build onto the ideas that they had offered if it fails.

I think in one option you trust that private insurance companies will lower the rates, and in the other option you trust that the government will lower rates. But neither way is really reverseable.

That may be your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see any truth in it as I can't think of any evidence to support it. The discussion we're having right now is about a change that would literally "reverse" a private system.

We have a long history in this country of "reversing" private systems to government run ones. For examples just see the failing entitlements I posted above. We don't have any history of reversing government entitlements, not even social security could get changed and that program virtually a corpse. Once again, if you know of any national entitlements that have been dropped in favor of private systems/business, please let me know. I'm trying to think of one and I can't.

EDIT: Thinking even harder, I can think of times when Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. deregulated to an extent, but even they weren't able to eliminate entitlements to my knowledge.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

That may be your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see any truth in it as I can't think of any evidence to support it. The discussion we're having right now is about a change that would literally "reverse" a private system.

Ok, lets say the government reversed free market things that are happening now. Lets say car insurance no longer could be sold accross state lines, lets say that banks can't function accross state lines. Or, lets say they made it no longer illegal to drive without car insurance..Honestly, do you know what kind of uproar that would cause?

So if they changed insurance to working accross state lines, then there is no going back. They would only be able to implement ideas to make it work more efficiently across state lines, but there will be no REVERSING what they did.

Same goes with the public option, there would be no reversing it. Once its there they can add regulations and make changes to it, but its not going away completly.

We have a long history in this country of "reversing" private systems to government run ones. For examples just see the failing entitlements I posted above. We don't have any history of reversing government entitlements, not even social security could get changed and that program virtually a corpse. Once again, if you know of any national entitlements that have been dropped in favor of private systems/business, please let me know. I'm trying to think of one and I can't.

I don't see any examples of the government dropping such a huge regulation on a private sector industry and then re adding it. Do you think NAFTA will be reversed any time soon?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Ok, lets say the government reversed free market things that are happening now. Lets say car insurance no longer could be sold accross state lines, lets say that banks can't function accross state lines. Or, lets say they made it no longer illegal to drive without car insurance..Honestly, do you know what kind of uproar that would cause?

So if they changed insurance to working accross state lines, then there is no going back. They would only be able to implement ideas to make it work more efficiently across state lines, but there will be no REVERSING what they did.

Sure you could reverse it: A government plan covering everyone, exactly what they're pushing right now all things considered. There is no uproar over state lines or what have you when there is no competition to roar.

I don't see any examples of the government dropping such a huge regulation on a private sector industry and then re adding it. Do you think NAFTA will be reversed any time soon?

We're not talking about regulation, we're talking about government run and operated entitlements. They are very different. NAFTA is not an entitlement that feeds, cares or pays people, it's a trade agreement aimed at industry.

I have given several examples of systems that the government has taken over that used to be supplied by private industry, can you name any entitlements that the private sector has replaced?

[Vampyr]

I'm assuming that a public option, universal health care system will work based on the fact that it has had moderate to great success in every other developed country. Certainly better than what our health care system is now. What other examples do we have to say that a free market and private health care system can work the way it needs to? What other examples do we have that tell us this will insure that EVERYONE has health insurance?

[TheGame]

Prof I think you're a bit confused about my arguement.

If the public option is created, it cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents.

And at the same time, if the limitation for companies to insure people across state lines is dropped, it also cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents, but its argueably as hard or harder to change then a government run insurance option.

I disagree with your logic that such a major change to such a major industry can be reversed. Which is why I brought of NAFTA as an example. It dropped a limitation on where industry can operate. It litterally cannot be reversed now because too much of industry has moved outside of the united states.