Quote:
Originally Posted by Credge
Well, Lost, that might work if the government didn't make the rules and the government couldn't print money.
In other words, if the government didn't have regulatory control it would be a fine competitor. Too bad it can regulate the industry until it becomes the winner, printing money and taxing to fill any deficits while the other insurance companies have to play by the rules that the government itself doesn't have to follow.
To give another analogy of where the government can behave unfairly:
The Toyota acceleration problems have been going on for a while now. Shortly after the government buys GM, the issue, which existed before and wasn't in the spotlight, becomes priority #1.
GM's biggest competitior? Toyota.
|
They are also doing it in the banking business. They want to heavily control a few banks and remove state control and shift it to the FDIC/OCC hybrid. They also want to remove the distinction between a federal regulated institution and state regulated institution and merge them into a single federally regulated system with less oversight. It's too much trouble to keep track of all these individual independent community based banks. So they are systematically destroying private community banks across America. Falsely inflating their risk profiles through political speak and issuing conflicting orders that purposely cause failures. While at the same time laying off the banks they bailed out.
That is not paranoia that is reality. They
cause banks to fail. Speaking of paranoia:
Quote:
Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse
What are they going to do? Is this more paranoia? Do you envision some authoritarian regime that refuses treatment to political dissenters and free thinkers? They are not given the liberty to decide whether or not one person gets treatment over the other, they are bookkeepers and policy makers.
For Christ's sake you people are almost as bad as the "911 was a setup" idiots.
|
History is a great teacher and yes, the 911 was a setup people are tin hat paranoid. But really, pick a government program, lets discuss it. Iraq war? National Debt? Anything.
Free thinkers are the one's questioning this decision. Independence vs. subjugates of the federal state, that critical borderline between most political views. If that is paranoia, count me in. If it's idiocy to reject subjugation count me in as well. And please stop ignoring health-care reform vs. THIS bill and THIS direction. Along with ignoring federal control vs state powers. Its very convenient to do that and assume everyone is crazy.
There are also other decisions made such as the take over of GM and those banking entities that fan that paranoia. Not to mention history. This thing may work but I seriously have my doubts. Do I think dissenters will be denied health care? lol. What I don't want is elections decided on who's going to raise health care payout this election year. That's not so paranoid. But I believe the more power you give an entity the more corrupt it will become. Especially if some people set in those seats of power for decades. The dudes had it right back in the day.... BALANCE of power through a republic. Not from the top down.
As for authoritarian regimes? Is that was you think a health care insurance company is? An authoritarian regime that at best makes probably 2 percent profit. At least mine does. How authoritarian is it to force every citizen to take a program controlled by congress? In which ultimately politics will always sway logic and then be enforced by the IRS? The citizen gestapo of the US Government.