Republicans can't have it both ways

Dispatcher · 11-22-2009, 11:17 AM

Senate Republicans (and Republicans in general) are upset about the Health Care Bill. Among some legitimate concerns, there are some concerns that I find ridiculous. One is opposition to the public insurance option. I hear the shouts of "Socialism!". But wait a minute, according to Republicans and free market advocates, private enterprise can do anything better that the government. Well, if that is the case, then there will be little if any competition between the public system and the private system.
And unless the government actually took over all health care, it wouldn't be Socialism anyway. A good example of public competing with private is the United States Postal Service, and I don't see anyone protesting that.
But here is were it gets really bizarre, in a funny kind of way. The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the bill would "raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a "massive and unsustainable debt."
Ok, the first and third reason for opposition may have merit, but the second one, cut Medicare? Since when did Republicans want to do anything BUT cut Medicare, as well as all other social programs? When did Republicans suddenly begin to care about the elderly and disabled?
So they can't have it both ways. They can't say on the one hand that the public option is a threat to Capitalism and then say that private enterprise can do anything better. And they can't say they want to cut entitlement programs, then pretend to be outraged when a Democrat bill proposes cutting one of them (if that part is even true).
Actually Republicans can have it both ways, if they don't mind having all the respect and credibility of Sarah Palin.

jubatus · 11-22-2009, 07:24 PM

Ill take Sarah Palins Values over any other politician and there "credentials."

No reason to get all crazy. I will never ignore what my heart tells me. And i'm sure you will never change either.

HughRuss · 11-22-2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by jubatus

Ill take Sarah Palins Values over any other politician and there "credentials."

No reason to get all crazy. I will never ignore what my heart tells me. And i'm sure you will never change either.

You would take a talking points machine devoid of any intelligence over, say, Ronald Reagan?

meatwadisprez · 11-22-2009, 08:31 PM

Off the point, but I would argue that plenty of people disagree with the postal service directly competing with primarily FedEx and UPS with that new "anything ships if it fits" thing they have.

stolz25 · 11-23-2009, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

They can't say on the one hand that the public option is a threat to Capitalism and then say that private enterprise can do anything better.

Sure you can, because a public program "succeeding" and a private program succeeding will be judged on completely different grounds. If a company creates a cheap insurance plan that people love and runs at a deficit, they go out of business. If the government does the same thing, it's a success. While the private industry will work toward optimizing cost versus the results it can't do that when there is "competition" that doesn't have to make a profit, or can run at a loss indefinitely.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 11-23-2009, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by meatwadisprez

Off the point, but I would argue that plenty of people disagree with the postal service directly competing with primarily FedEx and UPS with that new "anything ships if it fits" thing they have.

At least the Constitution provides for the Postal Service.

Stylerod · 11-23-2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Since when did Republicans want to do anything BUT cut Medicare, as well as all other social programs?

Have the Republicans always wanted to cut Medicare? I remember during Clinton that they wanted to offer other programs for the elderly to bring down the cost of health care. But I don't remember them really campaigning on a platform of always cutting healthcare.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 11-23-2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Among some legitimate concerns, there are some concerns that I find ridiculous. One is opposition to the public insurance option. I hear the shouts of "Socialism!". But wait a minute, according to Republicans and free market advocates, private enterprise can do anything better that the government. Well, if that is the case, then there will be little if any competition between the public system and the private system.

It'll likely work like this: The government option will be standard without a bunch of whistles and bells, etc. Most people will choose to stick with their privately purchased or employer-based plans. The government will then turn around and deem most of those private plans "Cadillac plans" deserving of the new government luxury tax provided for in this bill. As soon as the government starts taxing the daylights out of businesses that provide for BETTER private plans, the businesses will likely start offering substandard plans (or no plans at all) to avoid the tax and will tell their employees to supplement their insurance with the "cheaper" government plan. After repeating this for a few cycles, you'll get your government take-over of the industry.

As John Marshall once said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The public-option lovers are about to see that prophetic vision in action.

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

And unless the government actually took over all health care, it wouldn't be Socialism anyway. A good example of public competing with private is the United States Postal Service, and I don't see anyone protesting that.

1. See above on how the government could (and likely will) take over the health care industry. 2. I like that you brought up the Postal Service, an organization run entirely by the government. To say it is incompetent would be an understatement.

So this leads to the obvious question that if this is your best example of the "can-do" spirit of government service, why the hell do you want government providing you your health care? Furthermore, you can expand this example to other areas of government run operations. For example, I'd guess that more than two-thirds of the posters on this forum would NOT trust the government to take us to war (regardless of the provocation or the reason, however possibly just). Yet while you do not trust the government to defend the interests and national security, you do trust it to run your health and dictate terms of treatments to your doctors? (Unless, of course, you think that the Democrats are somehow "different" and won't throw you under the bus in their lust for power as those big, bad, evil Republicans will?)

Seems the GOP isn't the only entity wanting to have it both ways, methinks.

wanna be drummer · 11-23-2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

At least the Constitution provides for the Postal Service.

But it doesn't say it can blatantly try to undermine the market for its own sake

The Esteemed Gentleman · 11-23-2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

But it doesn't say it can blatantly try to undermine the market for its own sake

No. It doesn't say it can't though, either. What it does say is that the Congress may make all laws "necessary and proper" to execute its power to establish "post offices and post roads."

Now, while I don't see the USPS or Congress trying to undermine the private carrier industry (maybe I missed something; I admit I'm not up on the reading in this field), the unfortunate reality is that many people can and will construe Section 8 and the NPC to mean that the government, if it wanted, may exercise complete control over this area. Considering that, to my knowledge, there was no private mail carrying industry in the colonial era or early days of the republic, it would not be a far stretch to conclude that the Framers did indeed intend for Congress and the federal government to hold a monopoly on this industry. (That isn't to say that in modern times the Congress should, however.)

wanna be drummer · 11-23-2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

No. It doesn't say it can't though, either. What it does say is that the Congress may make all laws "necessary and proper" to execute its power to establish "post offices and post roads."

It really shouldn't have to. One of the core American principles is that we let the free market work for profit while the government just does some of less profitable work. It doesn't purposely try and compete when it is losing out to the market...

meatwadisprez · 11-23-2009, 03:35 PM

The governemnt has seen how profitable UPS and FedEx are. The USPS is trying to profit where UPS and FedEx have. Drummer is right in that the govt is undermining the free market for a profit, when it should not be in it for profit at all when the free market is doing its job.

JaJae · 11-23-2009, 08:22 PM

The Post Office is a horrible example of government effeciency. They are operating in the red. I also read an article not too long ago that stated the amount of mail has been declining, but the unions are so strong they can't let people go. So they're paying people to show up and sit in a room all day in some parts of America.

Also Republicans have been all over the map regarding Medicare. Most just wanted to see the program become more effecient. Don't forget it was Bush who pushed through the drug program which added a huge entitlement to the program.

As a side note, this policy promoted by the Democrats sucks. It's hard to call Republicans out on hypocrisy for not supporting a policy proposal that has less than 40% public support.

It's interesting that the hypocrisy being pointed out here is Republicans and a public healthcare proposal, when the Democrats in the Senate are split on it as well. What's more hypocritical based on party stereotypes? This is an unpopular proposal being pushed by the far left of Congress. Most moderate, centrist and conservative politicians are opposed or sitting on the fence. This isn't an issue of Republican hypocrisy, this is an issue of what most would consider a shitty healthcare plan being run through Congress.

Some public opinion of the bill:

Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

For a change, the Republicans are actually the ones siding with the majority of Americans. It's a shame the Democrats are trying to force through a massively expensive healthcare bill that's less popular than Sarah Palin...

Dispatcher · 11-23-2009, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

It'll likely work like this: The government option will be standard without a bunch of whistles and bells, etc. Most people will choose to stick with their privately purchased or employer-based plans. The government will then turn around and deem most of those private plans "Cadillac plans" deserving of the new government luxury tax provided for in this bill. As soon as the government starts taxing the daylights out of businesses that provide for BETTER private plans, the businesses will likely start offering substandard plans (or no plans at all) to avoid the tax and will tell their employees to supplement their insurance with the "cheaper" government plan. After repeating this for a few cycles, you'll get your government take-over of the industry.

As John Marshall once said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The public-option lovers are about to see that prophetic vision in action.

1. See above on how the government could (and likely will) take over the health care industry. 2. I like that you brought up the Postal Service, an organization run entirely by the government. To say it is incompetent would be an understatement.

So this leads to the obvious question that if this is your best example of the "can-do" spirit of government service, why the hell do you want government providing you your health care? Furthermore, you can expand this example to other areas of government run operations. For example, I'd guess that more than two-thirds of the posters on this forum would NOT trust the government to take us to war (regardless of the provocation or the reason, however possibly just). Yet while you do not trust the government to defend the interests and national security, you do trust it to run your health and dictate terms of treatments to your doctors? (Unless, of course, you think that the Democrats are somehow "different" and won't throw you under the bus in their lust for power as those big, bad, evil Republicans will?)

Seems the GOP isn't the only entity wanting to have it both ways, methinks.

You are quite correct about our government "taking us into war". However, I would be even more hesitant and more suspicious of their motives if a corporation took us into war. Our government has at least some interest in doing what is beneficial for it's people, even if it is just to get reelected to office. Corporations only care about profit, and they have no interest in doing anything for the common good, unless it also increases their net profit. That's why they can lay off 20,000 employees without batting an eyelash.
Government has incentives to care about the people, even if they are self serving incentives. Corporations do not have the same incentives.

Dispatcher · 11-23-2009, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The Post Office is a horrible example of government effeciency. They are operating in the red. I also read an article not too long ago that stated the amount of mail has been declining, but the unions are so strong they can't let people go. So they're paying people to show up and sit in a room all day in some parts of America.

Also Republicans have been all over the map regarding Medicare. Most just wanted to see the program become more effecient. Don't forget it was Bush who pushed through the drug program which added a huge entitlement to the program.

As a side note, this policy promoted by the Democrats sucks. It's hard to call Republicans out on hypocrisy for not supporting a policy proposal that has less than 40% public support.

It's interesting that the hypocrisy being pointed out here is Republicans and a public healthcare proposal, when the Democrats in the Senate are split on it as well. What's more hypocritical based on party stereotypes? This is an unpopular proposal being pushed by the far left of Congress. Most moderate, centrist and conservative politicians are opposed or sitting on the fence. This isn't an issue of Republican hypocrisy, this is an issue of what most would consider a shitty healthcare plan being run through Congress.

Some public opinion of the bill:

For a change, the Republicans are actually the ones siding with the majority of Americans. It's a shame the Democrats are trying to force through a massively expensive healthcare bill that's less popular than Sarah Palin...

I never said that the Post Office was good example of government effeciency. I said it was an example of a public entity competing directly with private entities. And as you pointed out, the Postal Service is operating in the red, so apparently, it doesn't pose much of a threat to private companies. In addition, just because the government does some things better than private enterprise, it doesn't mean it does those things well, or in an efficient manner.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 11-24-2009, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

...Corporations do not have the same incentives.

False! Although I feel (perhaps I got the wrong impression to your post) that you are trying to change the topic by throwing corporations under the bus, I'd point out that corporations, while having profit as their bottom line (which isn't a bad thing, btw), have the same self-serving interests in "caring for people" as government does. Government does it so that they can get re-elected; corporations do it so that they will earn repeat customers and stay in business, earning more profits.

Corporations lay-off employees as a self-survival mechanism because, unlike government, corporations do not have an endless supply of capital and resources to tap to exist indefinitely; government, obviously, does not have that same problem, thus why you don't see massive government lay-offs. Trust me, if government needed to operate like your standard corporation in order to ensure its survival, it would.

stolz25 · 11-24-2009, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Our government has at least some interest in doing what is beneficial for it's people, even if it is just to get reelected to office. Corporations only care about profit, and they have no interest in doing anything for the common good, unless it also increases their net profit.

Corporations have at least some interest in doing what is beneficial for people, even it is just to increase profit. Government officials only care about getting re-elected, and they have no interest in doing anything for the common good, unless it also increases their chances at getting re-elected.

See what I did there?

Dispatcher · 11-24-2009, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Sure you can, because a public program "succeeding" and a private program succeeding will be judged on completely different grounds. If a company creates a cheap insurance plan that people love and runs at a deficit, they go out of business. If the government does the same thing, it's a success. While the private industry will work toward optimizing cost versus the results it can't do that when there is "competition" that doesn't have to make a profit, or can run at a loss indefinitely.

Then FedEx and UPS should have gone belly up years ago.

Dispatcher · 11-24-2009, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

False! Although I feel (perhaps I got the wrong impression to your post) that you are trying to change the topic by throwing corporations under the bus, I'd point out that corporations, while having profit as their bottom line (which isn't a bad thing, btw), have the same self-serving interests in "caring for people" as government does. Government does it so that they can get re-elected; corporations do it so that they will earn repeat customers and stay in business, earning more profits.

Corporations lay-off employees as a self-survival mechanism because, unlike government, corporations do not have an endless supply of capital and resources to tap to exist indefinitely; government, obviously, does not have that same problem, thus why you don't see massive government lay-offs. Trust me, if government needed to operate like your standard corporation in order to ensure its survival, it would.

Corporations having profit as their bottom line is not a bad thing unless that is their only motivation and their only goal, which it is.
And corporations do not have the same self-serving interests in "caring for people" as government does, because caring for people often does not increase their profit margin. A good example of this is health insurance companies who turn people down because of pre existing health problems.
Other examples: Drug companies that publicly deny serious adverse effects of their drug while privately acknowledging those effects.
Certain automakers denying overwhelming evidence of their SUV causing a disproportionate number of rollover fatalities.
Illegal dumping of toxic wastes, price fixing, massive layoffs, fighting even legitimate workman's comp claims....hey, I'm just getting warmed up.
The bottom line is that if corporations can make a buck caring about people....fine. But if they make a buck not caring or even doing harm to people, that's fine too, as far as they are concerned.
Therefore, caring about people is only self serving for business part of the time....it's self serving for government all of the time. Because if they piss off enough people, they don't get reelected. That's what I call an incentive.

Dispatcher · 11-24-2009, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Corporations have at least some interest in doing what is beneficial for people, even it is just to increase profit. Government officials only care about getting re-elected, and they have no interest in doing anything for the common good, unless it also increases their chances at getting re-elected.

See what I did there?

Corporations also increase their profit at times by doing what is not beneficial for people.
And a politician doing something for the common good does increase their chances of re-election substantially, therefore providing an incentive that business doesn't have.
If a health insurance company turns down 1000 people because of pre-existing conditions, does the CEO risk losing his job? No. Will they make less profit because of their action? No.
I rest my case.