President Obama Healthcare Speech

[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?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by 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?

That's an interesting way to ignore my challenge. I don't accept the basis of your question in the "success" of other countries for reasons we've debated ad nauseum, such as the definition of success and the heady logistics of those policies in America. Also, don't mistake that the burden of proof in the argument is on the private system. The current American healthcare system is a known entity. The government run is the unknown, with the only relevant evidence to support it being Medicare and Medicaid, and they make a very poor case.

The bottom line is we can find the perfect government run system in some other country, and that would still have zero relevance to an American system working or the existing legislation. Such evidence would be equal to making a decision based on conjecture and "hey, if they did it...".

My questions and assertions in this conversation are based on the current American legislation, American experience with American entitlements, and the American economy.

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'reversible' is. If reversible is making future changes that counter the affect of the changes that are made now.. then they're both reversible in my book. If reversable is adding regulations back on or flipping some switch that magically takes us back to the time before the changes were made.. then no, neither of them are reversible.

And honestly, how many government entitlements has anyone seriously considered reversing? How many of them really failed to cover the group that it was meant to? I know you mentioned that you had given examples before, but I don't see them..