It would be a good analogy if the proposal was to remove the tax breaks for all employers not using the government plan. Since that isn’t the proposal, your analogy falls flat.
Perhaps a better one would be how government destroys a business on a small road by opening a freeway bypassing it. No one is forced onto the freeway - but if it is more efficient people will take it. Do you think building the interstate highway system was a bad idea?
Unless you’re seriously suggesting that the insurance companies will all be somehow driven out of business by De Bad Ol’ Gummint, the way Britain’s National Health failed to, leaving the American public bereft of any choice other than the Socialist Democrat one, then no, you’re not saying that at all.
Do you actually have some debate objective here other than to somehow score a cheap Gotcha point (which by now you should realize you can’t)?
It isn’t even. The uninsured tend to put off their visits to the ER until their conditions are advanced and more expensive to treat than they would be under an insurance program. The total costs of the system, and therefore to the insured, are *higher *because of the number of uninsured. The insured do pay for the uninsured already, in fact they pay more than with UHC or something close. Why wouldn’t they support it?
We’ve been over this before, you know.
It depends on what you mean by “a loss”. I’d think subsidizing uninsured Americans will happen anyway, so I wouldn’t count that in the cost column of the public plan. I’ve seen proposals requiring the public plan to break even, which sounds reasonable to me after a startup period, during which even private companies lose money. Would that be better? If not, would you consider a nonprofit insurer entering the market unfair competition?
As for doctors, it is not at all clear that anyone switching plans would lose their doctor - assuming the doctor isn’t opposed in principle to taking government money. I too have had my plan switched several times without having to switch doctors.
I suspect a lot of the problems conservatives have with this proposal is that it puts their claims of private sector efficiency to the test of the marketplace. You’d hope the justification for the profits coming out of sick people’s pockets is that the private system is more efficient than a public one. If a private system can make a profit and still be cheaper than a government one, that is good to know. If it can’t, then that is good to know also. What if the prospect of government competition causes the insurers to get more efficient to cut their costs and their premiums? Is that a bad thing?
Excellent analogy.
No, I think the interstates were a great idea.
But if the debate were raging about whether to build the interstates, and the President said, “Small business owners: don’t worry. No one is going to force traffic away from your road. If you want to keep your business, you’ll be able to. This road will just be another option, but you don’t need to worry about losing your business traffic because of it,” then I would say that he’s being dishonest.
And since my point has fuck-all to do with “Is it a good idea?” and EVERYTHING to do with, “Were the Presidents remarks honest?” I am really confused about why you’d ask me if I thought the interstate system was a good idea.
I think the interstates were a great idea. And I think the President should have said, “It’s possible that a few people with businesses on small roads may have to change or lose their businesses. But this is such a good change for the area as a whole that this small sacrifice for a few people is worth it.”
Absolutely. (“Better” in the sense that the President’s words are utterly defensible, which is after all the point of this thread.)
Not at all.
I had experiences both ways – I’ve lost doctors when changing plans (well, technically, ‘dentists,’ who are doctors, too, yes?) and been able to keep them. So, yes, it’s not obvious that everyone would lose a doctor.
But here’s what Obama said:
Period. Period. No matter what. Those are very absolute statements. They don’t make room for any exceptions.
My complaint is that it’s not so.
Fascinating. Utterly irrelevant to my point, which has nothing to do with the merits of this proposal. Fuck if I know if it’s a good or a bad thing. Sure, it’s the greatest thing since Julie Andrews finally going topless on screen.
There’s a larger issue too (and I acknowledge this post is wandering away from the topic of the OP). Health care is not strictly an economic issue even though it has economic aspects. It’s not just a case of arguing that the government paying for health care will create more savings then it will cost. Quite frankly, I personally doubt that.
But as I said in a recent thread about government services making profits, that’s a false dilemma. Profits are not the justification for government services. The government’s role is to protect our national society as a whole not to make a profit.
So the economic argument should not be whether Obama’s health plan will earn a profit. The economic argument is whether his health plan will be a service that is worth the cost. In my opinion, the benefits of increased access to health care for the general population will be worth the proposed tax money that will be spent on it.
A public health care system should be seen as something like having a public education system or a national defense system or a legal system - something that the government provides because it benefits the country not because it earns money.
I won’t yell at you for wandering off topic, since you know you did it. 
That’s a very defensible argument for the proposition that we should have government health care. And if the issue were public schools, and the debate raged over starting a public school system, and the President said, “If you like your school, you will be able to keep your school, period. If you like your private school system, you’ll be able to keep your private school system, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. If you like what you’re getting, keep it,” then I would say that is a lie. When the public school systems start, many people will switch the public schools and the inevitable consequence will be the loss of enough paying base to sustain the previous all-private school system. Some people will be forced to change as some private schools close.
That’s a small price to pay for having public schools.
I just would want the President to say, “Some of you may be forced to change or lose your current school as we stand up our new public school system, but the benefits of the change are so vast that it’s a sacrifice we must be prepared to make.”
I would NOT want the President to say, “Don’t worry about it, nothing will change.”
tears up
Nor have you heard anything that suggests it’ll operate at a loss. The crux of my argument, I think, is that it’s simply too soon to say one way or another. This is the problem with political speech: it’s very poetic, but generally lacks substance. But it makes sense to do it that way because most people like a good story, and don’t want to get bogged down with such petty things as facts, or data. Political speeches, to my mind, are more along the lines of the idiot’s guide to something rather than a careful, erudite examination of the relevant factors.
It would be nice if instead of “we’re going to do this” we got “here’s precisely how we want to do this.” The latter would make meaningful discussion of the actual issue possible while the former invites rank speculation.
Is it a fair assumption that it might work at a loss? Sure. But it’s also equally fair to assume that it’ll work at a profit, or neither make a profit, nor operate at a loss. It’s simply too early in the process to determine.
I guess I like to believe that the government will make better choices than not, despite all of the anecdotes to the contrary. However, it’s worth noting that some government programs do work as actual business, and do at least break even. Some even turn a profit. Of course, some do neither. But it simply won’t do to say that because x program operates at a loss so too will y program.
I want to be clear that I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong. I just think you’re being quite premature about the nay-sayery. However, I do think that if you slightly altered how you approach the subject, you’d find more people willing to listen because you can avoid your own bias and discuss the issue as it is now without that taint. Your concerns are legitimate; I just think your approach isn’t well-reasoned, but I suspect that’s why you’re posting here: to get more information, to develop your ideas. Of course, I could be wrong; you might just want to stir the pot. But, as I said earlier, I tend to work from the premise that people are at least trying to make wise choices. 
I fully believe that Obama is planning on single payer. I also believe that his plan is to create the government plan, offer it at such a low price that businesses have no choice but to join, and then watch the insurance industry die and allow the government to come in and take over.
Since the government can do things that private businesses cannot, like operate at a loss or raise taxes to pay for the government plan, there is no way a private business can compete with the government. Add on the fact that they are looking at taxinghealth insurance.
Is Obama lying? Not directly. Is he being disingenuous? Probably.
Slee
With respect, that’s not your complaint: I pointed out in my first post to the thread that his statement read literally is insane and absurd, and you agreed. You agreed that it needs to be read with some nuance. The problem is that you are applying a different nuance to the statement from what I am applying, from what the WH spokesman is applying, and (I believe) from what the president was applying.
Your complaint is not that the statement has exceptions: it’s that it has exceptions that you believe it doesn’t allow for.
I’d like to think I’ve addressed your arguments here. But if I was unclear of lost in the shuffle, here’s my views.
There is a reasonable standard in any speech. The point of the speech is to present an overall view in a clear manner not to quibble over the details.
As an example, in 1940 Roosevelt gave his “Arsenal of Democracy” speech to justify giving economic support to the United Kingdom to assist that country in fighting Germany. In his speech Roosevelt explicitly said that no American troops would be sent. (“There is no demand for sending an American Expeditionary Force outside our own borders. There is no intention by any member of your Government to send such a force. You can, therefore, nail any talk about sending armies to Europe as deliberate untruth.”) When the speech was written, some of Roosevelt’s advisors said he should put conditions on that promise and make it clear that it didn’t apply if Germany declared war on the United States. Roosevelt said he didn’t need to do that - any reasonable person understood that if another country attacked the United States we would fight back and any promise not to send troops overseas was void.
That’s what I see here. A strictly literal reading of what Obama said - (“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”) - would be, as I wrote in a previous post, that the government was guaranteeing that no insurer could ever cancel a policy and no doctor or hospital could ever refuse a patient if they treated him one time. That’s the only way that Obama could literally promise that nobody will ever have to give up their doctor or health plan.
Like Roosevelt, I’m sure Obama had some advisors who wanted him to add the obvious conditions to his statement. They would have rewritten the line to be: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, unless your doctor decides to discontinue treating you. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, unless your health care plan provider chooses to cancel your coverage. No one will take it away, unless the conditions I have outlined or their equivalent occurs.”
Obama probably found that a little uninspiring. And like Roosevelt, he would have told his advisors that any reasonable person would understand that what he was saying was that the government was not going to legally ban any alternatives or legally mandate any alternatives but that it was not going to assume the task of guaranteeing the continued existence of all alternatives.
And this is in fact what administration officials said was the intent of the statement - “What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance” The government isn’t going to make you change. But the government isn’t saying that other people won’t make you change.
Nah, Bricker’s just revealing his D&D geek side. A natural 16 is Obama’s “Save vs. Scheming Members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy twisting your words into meaninglessness”.
CMC fnord!
FTR, Obama acknowledged today that what he said might not end up being factually accurate in all cases:
Well, then! No problems at all.
Seriously: this is what I wanted. It’s accurate. It acknowledges the truth while emphasizing the part that was said earlier. We’re all good now.
So what prize do you win?
Indeed–that’s how I understood his words from the first time I read them. I don’t think this is remotely a change in position; rather, it’s clarifying an ambiguity in his words.
Obama was not addressing the equivalent of the small business owners (the insurance companies) but the drivers (the public.) If Obama said insurance companies were not going to be affected, you’d have an excellent point. He was saying the equivalent of “the government won’t force you to patronize businesses right at freeway exits; you can drive to whatever business you wish to after the freeway opens.”
My analogy falls down slightly in that the backroad businesses aren’t competing directly with the freeway, so it is far from perfect.
Obama’s words, as I see them, are addressing the bugaboo of big government getting between you and your doctor. I for one haven’t heard any outcry about protecting insurance companies from having to change.
Well, good for BO for 'fessing up.
The real test will be if he learns anything from this. Not merely not to tell this one again - to be forthcoming about the drawbacks of all his schemes.
Regards,
Shodan
The context makes it clear that this is as a result of the healthcare plan. The government can easily be responsible for loss of a doctor - say they cancel a defense contract, the contractor lays off a worker, and he loses insurance. That is due to the government but is irrelevant to a healthcare debate.
I got trained in grad school to never say anything without the proper conditions, and I bet you did also. But if Obama spoke like that he’d wind up sounding like Al Gore. Obama was addressing one of the major perceived negatives, not writing a bill.
Are you this upset by FDR also?
“There is nothing to fear but fear itself! Except for rabid dogs, floods, lightning strikes, earthquakes …”