Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
> 
> It may be his stated goal, but it's not in any legislation currently 
> under consideration.  Have you actually looked at the proposals?
> 
>> What are private insurance rates going to do when the self-insured 
>> (and by "self-insured" I mean not only the self-employed but also the 
>> unemployed dependents for whom the employed pay additional, 
>> out-of-pocket premiums) leave the poisoned private healthcare system?
> 
> As for the unemployed dependents, private insurance rates should 
> (theoretically) go down, since all those deadbeats won't be clogging up 
> accounts receivable anymore :)

Children who, for the most part, do not have chronic illnesses or 
workplace injuries but who pay into the system (through their parents) 
are deadbeats? That's one of the good things about private insurance vs 
taxes: people with children pay *more* into the system.

> 
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" 
>> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
> 
> Nothing is free (hence the humor of my original post).  If you don't pay 
> for it in premiums, you pay for it in taxes.
> 
> Besides, the Post Office hasn't killed off UPS or FedEx.  Why would a 
> government healthcare plan do any better at killing off the private 
> insurers?

Because the government hasn't /yet/ decided that I need to pay to ship 
your 50 lb box of jelly jars to Aunt Edna. Make shipping a "right" and 
see how long FedEx and UPS make it.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message