Straw Man

[Decker]

This is just more reason to never allow libertarians or republicans to make legislative decisions re Medicare.  You got Bush lying about the cost of his mediscare proposal.  YOu got Bush forcing the Medicare actuary to lie about the program.  You got Bush et al. removing the bargaining power of congress to lower drug costs--there's a sop to big Pharma.

And you have private insurance companies fucking the whole healthcare system up in general.

I'm waiting for your retraction and apology.  Medicare is not insolvent as you alleged.  Now is the time to come clean.  

That sounded gay and I'm sorry for that.

[Soul Crusher]

This is just more reason to never allow libertarians or republicans to make legislative decisions re Medicare.  You got Bush lying about the cost of his mediscare proposal.  YOu got Bush forcing the Medicare actuary to lie about the program.  You got Bush et al. removing the bargaining power of congress to lower drug costs--there's a sop to big Pharma.

And you have private insurance companies fucking the whole healthcare system up in general.

I'm waiting for your retraction and apology.  Medicare is not insolvent as you alleged.  Now is the time to come clean.  

That sounded gay and I'm sorry for that.

It is going broke. 

[Al Doggity]

ITS COMMON FUCKING SENSE..............

THIS IS MY POINT STRAW...Are you happy with the way the USPS is run? happy about the large amount of tax dollars thrown into this money pit? OK b/c the USPS cannot really compete with private companies it has become a money pit so you have option 1

option 2 USPS outperforms or performs equally as well but is still able to operate in the red or even with a profit margin unsustainable by a private company...the private companies will only be able to compete for so long before folding...

The USPS doesn't receive tax dollars. They operate on their own revenues. The USPS has been profitable for most of its existence.

[Soul Crusher]

The USPS doesn't receive tax dollars. They operate on their own revenues. The USPS has been profitable for most of its existence.

The problem is they did not economize with the creation of the internet, etc. 

Go into most Post Offices and it feels like 1985.   

[Al Doggity]

The problem is they did not economize with the creation of the internet, etc. 

Go into most Post Offices and it feels like 1985.   

That's one of the problems.  They have such a large network of employees and they are dependent on volume to be profitable, so in a bad economy like this one, they feel losses dramatically and don't have the option of being nimble.

That being said, the fiscal problems of the post office don't come down to the fact that it's a government agency.

[tonymctones]

The USPS doesn't receive tax dollars. They operate on their own revenues. The USPS has been profitable for most of its existence.

what happens when they run in the red where does the money come from?

[dkf360]

It is going broke. 

Sorry man, but implying something may happen in the future is not a valid argument for making present claims.

[dkf360]

I'm still still waiting for someone to provide concrete justifications as to why private health insurance companies are better than a government sponsored one. Based on historical experience with what we have now, I can't say moving away from the private industry is a bad thing.

[dkf360]

what happens when they run in the red where does the money come from?

They shut down branches, cut services, and operate like any other businesses?

[tonymctones]

I'm still still waiting for someone to provide concrete justifications as to why private health insurance companies are better than a government sponsored one. Based on historical experience with what we have now, I can't say moving away from the private industry is a bad thing.

If the govt program runs in the red who pays for it? if a private insurance company runs in the red who pays for it?

[tonymctones]

They shut down branches, cut services, and operate like any other businesses?

noooo you see your thinking of a private company, while the post office is doing this to a MIMINAL EXTENT they still operate in the red...who pays for the salaries and wages if the company is running in the red?

[Al Doggity]

noooo you see your thinking of a private company, while the post office is doing this to a MIMINAL EXTENT they still operate in the red...who pays for the salaries and wages if the company is running in the red?

What do you mean "minimal extent"?

Private companies operate in the red all the time.

USPS borrows against scheduled payments for employee retirement funds to pay for shortfalls. They don't receive money from the government.

Interesting side note: Up until 2001, people had been complaining that the USPS was making TOO MUCH money. Bush did a study and introduced reforms that capped stamp inflation to the level of the year prior. That's one of the main reasons the post office is in trouble right now. Inflation is rising so fast right now, USPS isn't legally allowed to raise prices to match operating costs.

[tonymctones]

What do you mean "minimal extent"?

Private companies operate in the red all the time.

USPS borrows against scheduled payments for employee retirement funds to pay for shortfalls. They don't receive money from the government.

Interesting side note: Up until 2001, people had been complaining that the USPS was making TOO MUCH money. Bush did a study and introduced reforms that capped stamp inflation to the level of the year prior. That's one of the main reasons the post office is in trouble right now. Inflation is rising so fast right now, USPS isn't legally allowed to raise prices to match operating costs.

not on a large scale...

Ok see the problem is only a govt agency can run in the red for and extended period of time public companies will go out of business....you still havent answered my question, when the post office runs in the red who pays for the salaries, wages expenses? when a private company does it who pays?

[grab an umbrella]

THIS WAS FROM BEFORE THE FINANCIAL MELTODOWN.  

Medicare Will Go Broke By 2018, Trustees Report

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Page A03

The financial troubles daunting the Medicare system have deepened during the past year, according to a government forecast that says the federal fund that pays for hospital care for older Americans will become unable to cover all its bills a dozen years from now.

The annual report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the fiscal health of the Medicare and Social Security programs, said the trust fund for the health insurance system for the elderly will run out of money in 2018 -- two years sooner than predicted a year ago and 12 years sooner than had been anticipated when President Bush first took office.
 
The problem, the report says, has accelerated largely because hospital costs last year were greater than expected.

The forecast also said that Social Security's financial condition has weakened, although its problems are not as great or urgent. It said the retirement system will have enough cash to pay the benefits it owes retirees, disabled workers and workers' survivors until 2040 -- one year less than expected in the 2005 forecast.

In releasing the report, the trustees -- including three of Bush's Cabinet secretaries -- slightly altered the message accompanying the forecast the past few years, when the administration sought to use the predictions as leverage to persuade a reluctant Congress to embrace the president's goal of letting Americans divert some of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. That emphasis prompted Democrats and other critics to chastise the administration for dwelling on Social Security while Medicare's problems were more acute.

Yesterday, the president's aides -- and Bush himself -- drew attention equally to the frailty of the two largest benefits programs that form the twin pillars of the government's assistance to the elderly. The solution, they said, is for Congress to approve changes Bush already has proposed.

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, one of the trustees, said the programs "form the basis of a looming fiscal crisis for our nation as the baby-boom generation moves into retirement."

"The systems are going broke," Bush said in a health-care speech earlier in the day. "And now is the time to do something about it."

Administration officials portrayed the report as containing some bright news, because spending on the new Medicare prescription drug benefits -- paid for from general revenue, not the same trust fund as covers hospital bills -- appears less than expected. Several of Bush's aides said costs will be lower because drug companies are charging less than predicted for medicine. However, two independent trustees had a different explanation: Fewer Medicare patients are signing up for the drug benefits than anticipated last year.

Administration officials did not emphasize yesterday the idea of private retirement accounts, a plan that is relatively inert on Capitol Hill. Instead, they focused on proposals Bush made early this year -- to create a federal commission on the plight of entitlement programs and to slow Medicare spending by $36 billion during the next five years. Neither has drawn much enthusiasm among lawmakers.

And yesterday's report -- released a month after its due date -- did not produce any surge of momentum. The chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee are griping that the White House has diminished the role of independent experts in preparing the trustees' report, by failing to appoint replacements for the public trustees, economists Thomas R. Saving and John L. Palmer, when their terms expired a year ago.

Instead, the White House renominated them last November and, after lawmakers complained that they preferred to rotate outside trustees, installed them without Senate confirmation as "recess appointments" while Congress took Easter vacation. Saving and Palmer said yesterday they had served as unpaid consultants in preparing the report until they were reappointed.

White House spokesman Ken Lisiaus said that Saving and Palmer were reappointed because they "are true experts in economics" and that the position of public trustee, created in 1984, is too recent "to establish any sort of long-held precedent" that they must serve only one term.

Easy guy, no need to actually use a fact based argument. 

[Soul Crusher]

You know what?

I try to use fact based arguments most of the time and sometimes fall off the wagon.  I try tomake sure i source my info, etc. 

Sure I screwed up on the SS article, but overall, I think I have a good track record presenting facts, and have become like kryptonite around here to the obamabots.     

[Al Doggity]

not on a large scale...

Ok see the problem is only a govt agency can run in the red for and extended period of time public companies will go out of business....you still havent answered my question, when the post office runs in the red who pays for the salaries, wages expenses? when a private company does it who pays?

Yes, Mctones, I know the definition of "minimal extent". I'm wondering what you think the p.o.'s  minimal extent solutions are?

I did answer the question. When the post office operates in the red, it takes out loans against its scheduled payments to employee retirement funds. They don't receive subsidies from the government.

Private companies run in the red all the time. Lear jet was operating at a loss for four years before they filed for bankruptcy last month . There are any number of measures a large company can take to keep the business afloat during lean times.

[George Whorewell]

This is really like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear weapon, but try to follow the basic premise of 33386's argument.

The government can operate in the red indefinetly because they print our money. They have the power to tax and spend for the "general" welfare and Congress can use any means it finds necessary and proper to implement its policies. That means, Congress can hold a nation wide bake sale, borrow money from foreign governments, print more money or contract out to private companies and give tax incentives or other benefits in return. Private companies CANNOT do this. They can file bankruptcy and restructure, they can get bailed out by the government, or they can perpatrate a fraud and rip off all of its shareholders-- either way operating in the red is a finite proposition for any private company.

By defintion a private company cannot and will not be able to compete with a government agency that makes the rules, prints its own money and operates with no possibility of failure (especially when its operating expenses will be less by definition and it is charging less for care).

Our government has operated in the red for my entire lifetime and we just watched the deficit baloon to an amount so outrageously enormous, you would need 10 statisticians just to figure out the interest we owe. Private companies would be bankrupt, corporations dissolved and employees jobless if they tried to pull the same act.

If for no other reason, this whole government run healthcare mess will be nothing more than a state run monopoly which will cause privately run insurance outfits to fold. At the expense of the 75% of americans who can afford private care or are already getting free healthcare, the whole concept of the free market will be flushed down the toilet. Rationing health care, waiting 6 months to visit a dentist and the other culprits in the parade of horribles are coming to a doctors office near you.

Is it an accident that when people in Canada and Europe need an important operation they come here? Is it just dumb luck that when world leaders and celebrities from other countries need operations they come here? Momentarily, Im going to post an article from todays post that puts things in perspective.

[dkf360]

noooo you see your thinking of a private company, while the post office is doing this to a MIMINAL EXTENT they still operate in the red...who pays for the salaries and wages if the company is running in the red?

So are we arguing about the virtues of a private company versus a government sponsored company or are we talking about public health care versus a private one?

For the latter, the people will have to pay no matter if it is publicly sponsored or a private. I'm more concerned about the level of service for what I am paying for. I doubt a public sponsored health care plan can be any worse than a private one.

[Al Doggity]

This is really like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear weapon, but try to follow the basic premise of 33386's argument.

There have been more than enough posts in this thread to demonstrate that that basic premise is faulty.

[Soul Crusher]

There have been more than enough posts in this thread to demonstrate that that basic premise is faulty.

Of what?  What I said is 100% accurate. 

[Al Doggity]

You're making the argument that the gov't has an unfair advantage because they have bottomless pockets and that they write the rules so private insurers won't be able to compete. On top of that,  even though the plans are government run and bound to be lousy, private insurers still won't be able to compete because everyone will choose lousy government run plans.

The government isn't interested in competing with insurance companies. The goal is to get everyone covered. They are not going to make it impossible for insurance companies to compete.

[Soul Crusher]

You're making the argument that the gov't has an unfair advantage because they have bottomless pockets and that they write the rules so private insurers won't be able to compete. On top of that,  even though the plans are government run and bound to be lousy, private insurers still won't be able to compete because everyone will choose lousy government run plans.

The government isn't interested in competing with insurance companies. The goal is to get everyone covered. They are not going to make it impossible for insurance companies to compete.

Oh lord are you uninformed. 

Take two plumbing companies  A and B.  both compete against each other for business.  Both pay private insurance costs of $300 a month per employee.  The govt comes out with a plan that costs $100 a month.  However, the $100.00 is not the actual cost since the taxpayer subsidizes the difference.  The private is now out of business since it cant offer a plan at $100.00 a month. 

Company A wants an advantage on B to lower its costs and dumps it employees on the govt program.  What will company B do?  It will either go out of business or put its employees also on the public plan for $100.00 a month.

Dont you see how this whole thing is a scheme to get tyhe govt to take over health care?
     

[grab an umbrella]

You're making the argument that the gov't has an unfair advantage because they have bottomless pockets and that they write the rules so private insurers won't be able to compete. On top of that,  even though the plans are government run and bound to be lousy, private insurers still won't be able to compete because everyone will choose lousy government run plans.

The government isn't interested in competing with insurance companies. The goal is to get everyone covered. They are not going to make it impossible for insurance companies to compete.

Okay, lets make an example out of this for you. 

I make 40,000 dollars a year.  I pay 300 dollars a month for my health insurance.  The government moves in and only charges me "150" dollars.  Well that isn't going to be much of a choice for me, or probably anyone for that matter.  So I take the public health option.  There are two advantages to this.  Now since I've left the private sector, I only have to pay for health insurance once(before I payed for private+public).  When people begin to realize that they are paying for health insurance for ALL americans, and they realize they are infact paying for healthcare twice, what do you think will happen?

[George Whorewell]

Al you nailed it on the head until you got to your second paragraph. The government does want to put the private companies out of business. Thats the point!

[Soul Crusher]

Al you nailed it on the head until you got to your second paragraph. The government does want to put the private companies out of business. Thats the point!

George - tell me in my example of the two plumbing companies how that does not EXACTLY detail what is going to happen.

People are so dumb and uninformed to realize what the truth is anymore.  My example, mark it down as of today, will be exactly what happens and will result in everyone being dumped on the govt system.