A good example of why southern conservatives are not trusted.

you're right....trustworthiness is not the issue....efficiency is.....any company as inefficient as the government would have been bankrupt long ago......that is, unless they got the government to bail them out....

Again, we see governments all over the world running medical services at 1/2 cost compared to the US so your argument doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

and are they not subsidized with taxes?.....what is the tax rate in Sweden compared to ours, for example?....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You don't know what your talking about. GM and Chrysler got into trouble because they didn't keep up with the market and were making gas guzzling trucks and SUV's that consumers no longer wanted.
Click to expand...

ah right....the thousands of dollars per vehicle that it cost to maintain retiree benefits had absolutely no effect upon the sales price of vehicles and their marketability.....I understand....by the way, did you say you thought folks like you would be able to run a automobile company?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then why can't it manage Medicare?.....
Click to expand...

The downfall is a part of the population is covered. Of course Medicare's cost is going to be high. It covers the people who require the most medical treatments because of age.

It's like having an insurance company that only covers cancer patients. That company would be in trouble.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can't.....people have been trying to explain that to liberals since before the war started.....you just aren't capable of understanding it for some reason.....
Click to expand...
You are right. I don't understand the reasonings. I don't think any rational or moral person can. Probably because those reasonings of you neocons is a house of cards built on hate, lies, deceit and a blood lust for killing innocent people because they are different from us or was it based on the illogic that you would liberate these people by killing them? Please enlighten us PiMP.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and are they not subsidized with taxes?.....what is the tax rate in Sweden compared to ours, for example?....
Click to expand...

Sweden taxes for more than health care. Other countries have lower taxes than Sweden.

Universal health care is paid for by taxes. That does not mean it costs more. The people are not paying premiums to an insurance company.

Look at the math. Per capita spending on health care is double in the US. and not all the people are covered. That means the people who are paying for health care are paying more than double what the citizens of other countries are paying.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
ah right....the thousands of dollars per vehicle that it cost to maintain retiree benefits had absolutely no effect upon the sales price of vehicles and their marketability.....I understand....by the way, did you say you thought folks like you would be able to run a automobile company?.......
Click to expand...
Not as much as you've been bullshited into believing. The hard cold fact is GM and Chrysler were building gas guzzling cars the public was not interested in buying and failed to make good business decisions. You want to believe it's because of legacy costs then it just goes to show you don't know jack shit about the auto business cause the obvious contradiction to your argument is why is Ford alive and well and making profits? They have the largest legacy costs of any auto manufacturer in the world but are alive and well and making profits and are not beholding to the Government for saving it's ass. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY BUILD GOOD CARS PEOPLE WANT TO BUY! If you think there's any other reason for the collapse of GM and Chrysler other they they were building cars people didn't want to buy at any price, then your as ignorant on this subject as you are on science and UHC.
 
apple0154 said:
What private business? Like GM? They were failing.

Or are you referring to medical insurers? Why shouldn't the government offer citizens medical coverage? Does the idea some people can make money take priority over other citizens health? Let there be a government option. If private companies can offer better service they'll flourish. If not, too bad. Why should the government be prevented from helping citizens just so a select few can make money? It's absurd.
Click to expand...

First of all the government does not get to be the independent entity that liberal's wish to make it! In America the government is "WE" the people and the majority of said people do get a say about what our government does!

Private companies that are failing should be allowed to re-organize under bankruptcy laws and either make it or lose it! That has always been the way and should continue to be in a free society! Giving government more power via social and economic control is the surest road to social and economic slavery, as has been proven out already!
 
Ice Dancer said:
First of all the government does not get to be the independent entity that liberal's wish to make it! In America the government is "WE" the people and the majority of said people do get a say about what our government does!

Private companies that are failing should be allowed to re-organize under bankruptcy laws and either make it or lose it! That has always been the way and should continue to be in a free society! Giving government more power via social and economic control is the surest road to social and economic slavery, as has been proven out already!
Click to expand...

Why can't the government enjoy free enterprise? Let the government run GM and compete with Ford and Chrysler and any other company. If GM doesn't make money after a period of time the government can sell it or simply fold. What's wrong with that?
 
apple0154 said:
Why can't the government enjoy free enterprise? Let the government run GM and compete with Ford and Chrysler and any other company. If GM doesn't make money after a period of time the government can sell it or simply fold. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Because government is not a company, it is a body politic set up to govern not for profit. Mussolini would love you!
 
apple0154 said:
Why can't the government enjoy free enterprise? Let the government run GM and compete with Ford and Chrysler and any other company. If GM doesn't make money after a period of time the government can sell it or simply fold. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
It's a conflict of interest.

What if the Government decides not to compete and dictate that we buy only cars manufactured by them? They could easily abuse their power and legislate a monopoly that could ruin more profitable companies who offer a superior product at a lower price. I'm not particularly comfortable with the Government having a controlling interest in GM and Chrysler and the sooner they can pay back the tax payers and the Government can divest it self, the better we will all be.

The question about GM and Chrysler is a strategic one. What harm would it do to our nation economically if they were allowed to fail utterly? Would we still have the manufacturing base needed to build heavy equipment, including those used in national defense in time of war? Would the spin off affect cause other companies, that were their vendors and suppliers, to crash? If GM and Chrysler had gone under, it would have destroyed thousands of businesses who supplied them with products and services and would have thrown their employees into the unemployment lines through no fault of their own. All of this would have taken considerable amounts of money out of circulation worsening the impact. Considering the unfortunate coincidence of their failure with the banking crises the combined impact could have been catastrophic to our economy had not the government intervened. That was the lesson to be learned from the Great Depression. The Market can't always fix it self.

There's also a bit of a hypocracy here too. Our government subsidizes industry all the time and always has. Particularly in agricultural industries and in basic material industries.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Because government is not a company, it is a body politic set up to govern not for profit. Mussolini would love you!
Click to expand...
Couldn't you make the same argument about publicly owned hospitals and are not most hospitals publicly owned? If they are subsidized by the public is it not in the publics interest for them to be operated as non-profit organizations to better serve the public?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Because government is not a company, it is a body politic set up to govern not for profit. Mussolini would love you!
Click to expand...

Well, he did keep the trains running on time and talking about on time maybe the government should take over the air lines. I've heard stories about people sitting on planes for hours and hours before take-off.

Wouldn't it be worth it to go to the airport and know your plane was leaving on time?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Couldn't you make the same argument about publicly owned hospitals and are not most hospitals publicly owned? If they are subsidized by the public is it not in the publics interest for them to be operated as non-profit organizations to better serve the public?
Click to expand...
Are most hospitals publicly owned? As far as I know the only public hospital here is Denver General. Most of the ones I know are run by churches...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What if the Government decides not to compete and dictate that we buy only cars manufactured by them? They could easily abuse their power and legislate a monopoly that could ruin more profitable companies who offer a superior product at a lower price.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing with that kind of thinking. The government can possibly do whatever it wants. It can dictate everyone must buy a Toyota and then get a kickback from the large Toyota sales. In other words the government can legislate a monopoly whether or not it's in the car business.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Mott the Hoople said:
It's a conflict of interest.

What if the Government decides not to compete and dictate that we buy only cars manufactured by them? They could easily abuse their power and legislate a monopoly that could ruin more profitable companies who offer a superior product at a lower price. I'm not particularly comfortable with the Government having a controlling interest in GM and Chrysler and the sooner they can pay back the tax payers and the Government can divest it self, the better we will all be.

The question about GM and Chrysler is a strategic one. What harm would it do to our nation economically if they were allowed to fail utterly? Would we still have the manufacturing base needed to build heavy equipment, including those used in national defense in time of war? Would the spin off affect cause other companies, that were their vendors and suppliers, to crash? If GM and Chrysler had gone under, it would have destroyed thousands of businesses who supplied them with products and services and would have thrown their employees into the unemployment lines through no fault of their own. All of this would have taken considerable amounts of money out of circulation worsening the impact. Considering the unfortunate coincidence of their failure with the banking crises the combined impact could have been catastrophic to our economy had not the government intervened. That was the lesson to be learned from the Great Depression. The Market can't always fix it self.

There's also a bit of a hypocracy here too. Our government subsidizes industry all the time and always has. Particularly in agricultural industries and in basic material industries.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
Are most hospitals publicly owned? As far as I know the only public hospital here is Denver General. Most of the ones I know are run by churches...
Click to expand...
Which are tax exempt. Wouldn't we be in our rights to ask them to operate as non-profits in order to preserve their tax exempt status?

and BTW, over 80% of the Hospitals in the US are publicly subsidized, non-profit organizations.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
Here's the thing with that kind of thinking. The government can possibly do whatever it wants. It can dictate everyone must buy a Toyota and then get a kickback from the large Toyota sales. In other words the government can legislate a monopoly whether or not it's in the car business.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
I believe that's my point. That would be a conflict of interest.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Which are tax exempt. Wouldn't we be in our rights to ask them to operate as non-profits in order to preserve their tax exempt status?
Click to expand...
They do...

I'm confused as to what you are saying. The churches, because they are exempt, run their hospitals as not-for-profit corps. There are some that are attached to private colleges that seek profit, but I can't think of any company that just runs hospitals for profit.

The vast majority of hospitals are run by not-for-profit corporations already, what do you think you'd be improving by making new laws about it?
 
Damocles said:
They do...

I'm confused as to what you are saying. The churches, because they are exempt, run their hospitals as not-for-profit corps. There are some that are attached to private colleges that seek profit, but I can't think of any company that just runs hospitals for profit.

The vast majority of hospitals are run by not-for-profit corporations already, what do you think you'd be improving by making new laws about it?
Click to expand...
You're reading to deep into my question Damo. I'm just making the point that since most hospitals are subsidized by the public that the public has the right to insist they be operated as non-profits. Which, as you pointed out, they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top