It’s interesting that you’d bring up health care here, because private insurers have incentives to scratch and claw for every last penny. The gvt at least is responsive to public pressure.
jpe - 12:11pm on 11/21/2007
Private insurance has incentive to keep costs low. Government, on the other hand, keeps costs in line by telling people they’re too old or too fat to get health care.
Neither is perfect, but I’d prefer private over government any day of the week.
Rob - 12:11pm on 11/21/2007
It’s interesting that you’d bring up health care here, because private insurers have incentives to scratch and claw for every last penny. The gvt (sic) at least is responsive to public pressure.
Translation: Government-run programs never, ever cost as little or are as effective as their proponents say, because government bureaucrats, especially liberals, regard increased budgets as some sort of career merit badge in empire building, and think of the American taxpayer as a Gold Amex card with no spending limit.
The fact that this one-size-fits-all, lowest common denominator, “WTF” attitude is tolerated in the FAA, the SEC, the Post Office, and, God help us, the State Department, is no reason to foist the same mindless extravagance on America’s health care industry.
Bat One - 01:11pm on 11/21/2007
Private insurance has incentive to keep costs low. Government, on the other hand, keeps costs in line by telling people they’re too old or too fat to get health care.
You’ve got it completely backwards, although given your track record of ignoring reality, that’s no surprise.
Private for-profit health-care is about making profits for shareholders and management. Customers come a very distant third. Try getting health insurance if you’re old, or have pre-existing conditions.
The health-insurance industry is only interested in covering healthy people.
And when you’re suggesting that the Pentagon’s original policy is the result of bureaucracy you neglect to the obvious qualifier - the government that oversees this policy is Republican.
graybeard - 03:11pm on 11/21/2007
They were willing to take from the maimed.
Did they take from the dead?
WOOF - 06:11pm on 11/21/2007
Demanding repayment was no accident,it was policy.
Some SOB signed for these actions.
What’s his name?
It’s interesting that you’d bring up health care here, because private insurers have incentives to scratch and claw for every last penny. The gvt at least is responsive to public pressure.
Private insurance has incentive to keep costs low. Government, on the other hand, keeps costs in line by telling people they’re too old or too fat to get health care.
Neither is perfect, but I’d prefer private over government any day of the week.
Translation: Government-run programs never, ever cost as little or are as effective as their proponents say, because government bureaucrats, especially liberals, regard increased budgets as some sort of career merit badge in empire building, and think of the American taxpayer as a Gold Amex card with no spending limit.
The fact that this one-size-fits-all, lowest common denominator, “WTF” attitude is tolerated in the FAA, the SEC, the Post Office, and, God help us, the State Department, is no reason to foist the same mindless extravagance on America’s health care industry.
You’ve got it completely backwards, although given your track record of ignoring reality, that’s no surprise.
Private for-profit health-care is about making profits for shareholders and management. Customers come a very distant third. Try getting health insurance if you’re old, or have pre-existing conditions.
The health-insurance industry is only interested in covering healthy people.
And when you’re suggesting that the Pentagon’s original policy is the result of bureaucracy you neglect to the obvious qualifier - the government that oversees this policy is Republican.
They were willing to take from the maimed.
Did they take from the dead?
Demanding repayment was no accident,it was policy.
Some SOB signed for these actions.
What’s his name?