An online community for single parents to meet, chat and find support!

government run health care

Rating: No Rating

Barack Obama recently said, "I think private insurers should be able to compete...I mean. If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

The President is acknowledging what Republicans have been saying all along: That the private sector does a better job offering choices and delivering services to customers in a competitive and cost effective manner than a government-run monopoly.

But Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress are pushing for a government-run health care scheme that is inefficient, limits choices and hemorrhages taxpayer money like the Post Office.

Two weeks ago, the Post Office was called a "high risk" federal agency by the Government Accountability Office. The Post Office will have a $7 billion operating loss this year. So what makes the President, Nancy Pelosi and their left-wing allies think that government bureaucracy can run health care better than the private sector?

Share Twitter

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jordan on August 25, 2009 at 11:28am: I was under the impression that the goal is to overhaul healthcare, not simply do a government take-over. There are some good ideas out there right now. Co-ops are a viable private option that can lower costs and usher in efficiency. I don't believe private enterprise, despite republican hails, is the best option. We can see throughout history that when you let a free market reign, it does so like a slave trader. I'm not saying we need another government corporation, but someone needs to get the ball rolling before the baby boomer crisis is in full affect.

What I hear a lot is that "government is bad." Do you propose a different solution? Hey Tam, I go rounds with the babies' mama about this, so I don't mean to incite violence here ;); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by argonaut (Scott) on December 10, 2009 at 10:40pm: What is the difference between a co-op and a non profit insurance company? Lets see both are made of people who willingly come together to pool thier resources to pay for the costs of each others medical needs. No difference what so ever. Blue Cross blue shield is a non-profit insurance and the largest insurer in many states. If you don't like the free market join the non-profits. No one is stopping you.

Your impression is totally wrong. The objective is to make health care a government benefit. Leading democrats have said so. They also have said that the new deal secured their power for years and this will do the same. The problem with any gov't option is it will soon be the only option. The gov't option won't have to make a profit there for it can undercut all the other insurance until every employer picks it for their employees and/or it is the only one left standing.

First, I reject the notion that there is a crisis. 33% of health care costs go to medical malpractice insurance but that is not even on the table for the dems? Lots of unneccessary and expensive things are done because of fear of lawsuits. Whom do trial lawyers give most of thier money too? Dems.

We can see throughout history when you let a gov't market reign it does so like a slave trader also.

Consider the fact that we really don't have a free market for health care. The gov't already dictates what must be covered and usualy how it must be delivered. Hospital try to keep you in the hospital for two days after child birth simply because they know your insurance must pay for that long.

The simple fact is that we all make choices over what we are going to pay for. We either choose to buy healthcare or we choose not too. If you are a child healthcare is free. Don't believe me? When was the last time you heard of a Shriner's hospital turning a child away? For that matter even if you don't have insurance as an adult you will get most care. All care no. But, not even under the gov't run systems you do not get all care. Example the current systems proposed will force the doctors to send your records to the gov't. If the gov't thinks the doc is providing to much care they will tell him. If he does not comply with their "guidance" he will not be paid as much even for other patients. Over 70 you can pretty much forget about getting anything because these same panels will decide if it is worth paying for hip surgery depending on your age.
Frankly I do not want to go to prison because I choose not to have healthcare or can't afford anything but the gov't plan. Having been a foster parent I have seen both gov't and private health insurance. Gov't may pay for everything but it is a b*tch to get it. The gov't can not even properly take care of their own children or provide medical and dental what makes anyone think making it bigger will make it better. Last but not least it is unconstitutional their is not other tax that a citizen incurs simply by existing. If you want to pay for others medical expense go for it but do not force me at the barrel of a gun to do the same.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by WhisperingWinds on November 30, 2009 at 8:53pm: The ins. industry got bad when the began to sell stock. Before that the premium payers were the stock holders. Then they began to trade on the NYSE. Things got bad. I think coops are good and the big pharma needs to be reigned in. I used to work for them. They make the medical parts for next to nothing but then the US markup is so high. THey have to sell the same stuff to europe and canada for a lot less because of govt contracts they sign.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Todd on December 25, 2009 at 2:48pm: The problem is that the federal government has formed monopolies. In some state there are only 3 insurance companies allowed by federal law to compete. Break the federally placed monopolies, allow more competition and that will drive prices down.
Yes, its cheap to make prostetic limbs etc, but the liability is astronomical, if you worked in the business, you know that. Same with pharmasutical companies, those pills might be cheap, but the liability insurance and the amout of R&D involved are very high. This move for government health care is a play for power, and a mother may I government.; ▶ Reply to This