Competition in health care? How about everywhere else too?
I’ve been thinking about this over the weekend, and AJ over at Strata-Sphere posted the same this morning. If competition is good for health care – so much so we need a “public” option – how about competition in public schools (vouchers) and for Social Security (private accounts)?
But nooooooooooo. They don’t want the private sector getting involved with the public education system, those vouchers just take away money from the public system.
And God forbid a small percentage of your Social Security taxes be placed in a private, low-risk account which you can manage yourself. Nooooooo. We saw the stock market take a dive – the federal government must hold that money for you so it is protected.
Hat tip to AJ at Strata-Sphere who references Jerry Doyle’s radio program.
Isn't it amusing that throwing money at teachers is supposed to result in better education, but throwing money at doctors only gets you "poorer healthcare"?
Maybe they can find a cure for Democrats talking out of both sides their mouths…
Guess what? There is competition in education: private and public schools. There is competition in the investment sector: Social Security, 401k, brokerage accounts etc. There is even competition in health care: buy your own or join a group. In all cases it's down to the cost of buying them! The health care costs are going up well beyond inflation/CPI etc.
Man…can't touch that logic. As far as the two sided oral discharge, I believe it is directly related to the rectal cranial inversion. No known cure as of yet…
Only sammy22 would be bold enough to suggest competition is defined as a family paying twice if they choose not to send their children to public school. There is no competition with Social Security either. "Oh, you can invest in anything you'd like, but you must give the government 15 percent to fund Social Security first."
That's like suggesting you need to go buy a Dell laptop before you go buy the MacBook you really want in the first place. Keep coming up with your comments sammy22, they work well to prove my case in every way, shape and form. Thanks.
Steve you are welcome. As usual we see things in different ways. When it suits you, having choices is competition, other times it is not. I did not define competition, but I would like to read your definition. I just read what the dictionary says.
So "competition" for you is two teams playing baseball, but private team has to give the other 10 runs, and then earn their own to remain "competitive?" And the government team gets to set the rules of the game. And they get all the concession proceeds too!
What next? A duel where one guy gets both the pistols?
I guess I share Steve's definition of competition too. Sorry sammy, but you dropped the ball on this one.
With analogies like yours, and illuminating comments like Lazybum's there is no way to compete (ah- ah). Playing fields are rarely level: I pay taxes for the education of other people's children (Am I entitled to some "voucher" like Steve would like to have?). IRA contributions are tax deductable, and 401k contributions are tax deferred and etc. There is even a handicap in golf. Is it just a matter of taxes, most of which you have a problem with?
Now we get to the crux of the matter: "Playing fields are rarely level." That is absolutely correct. The manner in which Obama is trying to make things "level" is called socialism:
"Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism."
Socialism is not capitalism, nor is it competition.
"Playing fields are rarely level: I pay taxes for the education of other people’s children." Your argument is specious: everyone pays for the education of other people's children; is is just those that choose to opt out of the public system that pay twice. Isn't that a sort of double jeopardy?
"IRA contributions are tax deductable (sic), and 401k contributions are tax deferred and etc." Remember: this is money above and beyond the "contribution" taken for SS. If you die at 60, what happens to your money? Does it actually grow (not really)? Would you be better off if you had control of it? Yes! (see Galveston, TX)
Government control is not competition.
At least we agree that playing fields are rarely level. As to my specious argument: you know the rules before you get to "play the game" (and what portion of the taxes we pay as individuals goes into the Board of Ed budget?) Should we have vouchers based on what?
As to SS, I believe that if one dies there are survivors benefits.
So my (and Steve's) point about private school attendees paying twice is not important? Deal with all the points.
Re: SS benefits. Dependent on many factors, some paying, some not, i.e. if a wife remarries, the SS benefits are lost. The point: it isn't your money anymore, and is doled out as the gov't sees fit. If you die, without heirs, the state keeps it. Did you bother to look up what Galveston did when it opted out of SS (before they closed the loophole)?
How about using socialistic methods to artificially "level the playing field"?
We agreed on the "not level playing fields". I'm not interested in commenting on whose playing field is more/less level.
Paying twice is an issue (not for me), but paying when no children are in the school system could be an issue too (I am still paying).
They closed the loophole in Galveston: then it's a moot point.
As to SS, I have already collected much more than I put into the SS account (not so for Medicare); so I am not to complain (and it keeps coming). Done not so well from having invested in what turned out to a Maddoff- like scheme ( with assurances that due diligence was done with great care).