Upper Left Coast

Thoughts on politics, faith, sports and other random topics from a red state sympathizer in indigo-blue Portland, Oregon.

Monday, July 27, 2009

The best laugh I've had all week

came in Jack Bogdanski's wrap-up of his meeting with Howard Dean. It's good reading, as Jack usually us, but this is where I spewed coffee across my computer screen (emphasis mine):
Part of the professed goal of the "public option" is to put the government in competition with the private insurers, to make the latter less wasteful and less predatory.
Government is going to make private insurers less wasteful? Because the government has such a great track record of avoiding waste? What a hoot!

11 Comments:

  • At 7/29/2009 10:28 AM, Blogger OregonGuy said…

    Drives me crazy. But then I've spent too much time working with state employees. And city employees. And county employees.
    .

     
  • At 7/29/2009 3:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    umm, do you know what the overhead is for private insurers compared to the govt?? the fancy buildings, the ad campaigns, the shareholder dividends, the management salaries, the private planes, etc, etc.. medicare has none of that. so, yes, public option will indeed cause private companies to be less wasteful. thanks for playing though.

     
  • At 7/31/2009 11:32 AM, Blogger OregonGuy said…

    Anonymous is right, you know. Take a look at the buildings governments build.

    No waste there.

    Nope.
    .

     
  • At 8/03/2009 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    are you kidding- you really want to compare the headquarters of blue cross or aetna with the medicare headquarters? go right ahead!

     
  • At 8/03/2009 7:59 PM, Blogger MAX Redline said…

    Nonny apparently is unaware of the fact that Medicare started paying out more money than it received last year. Medicaid? Broke. So-so Security? The government's projections included best- and worst-case scenarios. Under the worst, Social Security would start to pay out more money than it received in taxes in 2013, and the fund would be depleted in 2029. Cash for Clunkers? Broke. USPS? Broke.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plummeting_taxes

    Now we're expected to believe that government can do a better job when it comes to health care?

    Apparently, Nonny has a "medical marijuana" card.

     
  • At 8/04/2009 3:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Gov't does need to make a profit, private industry does. Rationing? Private insurers already do it. "Putting a bureaucrat between patient and Doctor"? Private insurers already do that. I'd rather have a bureaucrat from Medicare which can run at a loss if it needs to than a private bureaucrat who has a financial interest in not treating me.

     
  • At 8/11/2009 11:51 AM, Blogger true_slicky said…

    We all know that waste and abuse never, ever, ever occurs in the private sector.

    God forbid that private companies make three to five percent profit as opposed to thirty. You guys are arguing until you're blue in the face to protect somebody you don't know's right to earn $102,000 a week. That's one hundred grand put into health care CEO's pockets that are not spent on health care!

    The purpose of the USPS is to delvier mail, not to make a profit. The purpose of Medicare is to provide health care, not to make a profit. If you guys had your way and privatized the USPS, thus cutting all the benefits that create the incentive for long-term employees to stay with their jobs, and delivering mail in "rain, snow and sleet" we'd have an increased turnover of pimple-faced teenagers who "might" deliver mail in their need to get gas money for the weekend. That's who you want delivering your social security check and bank statements?

     
  • At 8/11/2009 1:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    well put, true. but i wouldn't worry too much: they are an ever shrinking (and pretty old, overall) group of people underneath whom the ground has shifted in huge ways. today's kids (the voters of tomorrow) by and large don't hate the government and gays, don't care about racial demographics, and all the other stuff that makes the right wing unhinged.

    as for healthcare, i no longer listen to anybody opposed to a public option unless they take themselves and/or their parents or grandparents off medicare and va benefits. if you are shouting about "socialism" and are on (or have loved ones on) medicare, you are ridiculous.

     
  • At 8/17/2009 2:21 PM, Blogger Ken said…

    Slicky, of course waste and abuse happen in the private sector, but the difference is that it repeatedly happens in government and nothing changes; in the private sector, too much waste and abuse means the end of that company.

    Guess what: I happen to disagree with conservatives who say everything should be subject to the rules of the free market, because then there's no accountability for areas of critical public concern. But the fact remains that an effort of the size we're talking about is going to be ripe with abuse, and the only accountability will be the empty words of politicians for the next umpteen years. In the meantime, the costs are going to sink our nation in so much crippling debt that there will be no way out.

    You seem to think it's somehow immoral for someone to make money. It's not, and I hate that class warfare crap. However, I equally hate those who take advantage of the weak to pad their own pocketbooks, so if that's what's happening in health care, let's weed it out. But don't assume that someone making $5 million a year as a health care CEO is automatically the enemy.

    Even if some CEO is making $5 million a year, that is irrelevant to the fact that the US spends trillions of dollars on health care every year. The question should not be, why are people making millions in health care -- if that's the requirement, then you can kiss any medical advancements good-bye because most medical professionals are not going to pursue those causes simply out of the goodness of their heart.

    The focus should be on the big picture -- how to spend those dollars wisely so that those without health care are covered in the most affordable manner possible.

     
  • At 8/17/2009 2:34 PM, Blogger Ken said…

    Anon 1:23 -- Way to shift the discussion to completely irrelevant issues (gays? race? who said anything about that?). It's clear from your comments that you won't listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

    The thing I hate about politics in this country is it's turned into a 100-100 nation. You apparently have to be either 100 percent in favor of the "public option," or you're 100 percent opposed. The result is that Democrats have their bill, Republicans have their bill, and whoever is in power will do their damnedest to ignore suggestions (no matter how valid) from the other side. And yes, both sides have and are doing it.

    In keeping with that tradition, you seem to think anyone opposed to the "public option" is ridiculous and hypocritical (unless they pull their relatives off government assistance), when the truth just might be a little more nuanced than you're willing to consider.

    Maybe, just maybe, we see good things about VA benefits and Medicare. And maybe, just maybe, we also see that Medicare costs are pulling the nation toward an economic cliff that will turn into a bottomless abyss under universal health care. So maybe, just maybe, we're putting on the brakes in the hopes of finding some middle ground that won't bankrupt America in the process.

    Nah, couldn't be. Go back to your despise of all who disagree with you.

     
  • At 2/27/2010 7:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What is the most efficient medical system today, the one with the least administrative cost and high consumer rating? VA medical system. this is a system that is 100% government run.

    Post office
    Fire and Police departments
    National Park service (if left along and funded correctly)
    Etc...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

|
 
Google