whats to be afraid of,

[Guest guest]

re: "He was saying that it is illogical to think that one could

not compete against such a business. In other words "whats to be

afraid of"

Do you mean you favor the type of efficiency of the CRA of 1977 that

seeded the Fannie Mae crisis, increasingly worsening with each

iteration through a compliant congress? That we have no need to be

concerned of agencies under the influences of lobbyists effecting the

passage of their own agenda?

Do you mean to ignore the history of infinite tax bailouts for public

agencies that have no concerns of meeting expenses through the value of

goods/services they provide?

Do you mean to ignore the convenience of being able to write public

laws favoring one and not the other?

Would you wear the Ring if it slipped from Gollum's fingers to yours?

I'd love to see a list of where to place my confidence in such

rhetorical notions. Are you telling me the likes of Barney

will suddenly develop the wisdom and capacity to moderate the excesses

of others in power?

J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Dr. Pedersen,Consider the following, por favor. (Obama and Joe said it with fewer words....):Who's Afraid of a 'Public Plan,' and Why?Private Sector May Not Have as Much to Fear From a Public Plan as it ThinksIf private companies are better at whatever might be the task at hand, mainly because they have already accrued the benefits of prior healthy competition, why would our nation's private health insurance companies so desperately fear the presence of a public sector alternative as part of that very competition?Surely they would expect to be able to easily thrash such a public alternative in the marketplace. After all, they have the head start of being better at doing this from the outset, they have the advantage of being more nimble and responsive going forward, and the public program, whatever its final form, will be disadvantaged by the inevitable ineptitude of government. So why on earth would the private companies be worried that the public program alternative might be able to even come close to achieving their standards?To be sure, if the same public program that competes with the private entities also gets to write and enforce the rules of the competition, that might create a problem. But almost all serious observers anticipate that the public program alternative currently being proposed will not also control the regulatory framework in which services are offered; it will simply be available as another option, and will survive only if it can succeed as a genuine alternative to those private companies.Clearly, if the certain ineptitude of a public program and the obvious superiority of the private sector are true, there would be no reason for the latter to fear the former. Given the passion of such fear in today's health policy conversation, one cannot help but wonder what else might be going on here.http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/Story?id=7911531 & page=1 Sears, DC, IAYT2609 NW ThurmanPortland, Oregon 97210v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.comOn Jun 25, 2009, at 9:43 AM, cosmo wrote: re: "He was saying that it is illogical to think that one could not compete against such a business. In other words "whats to be afraid of" Do you mean you favor the type of efficiency of the CRA of 1977 that seeded the Fannie Mae crisis, increasingly worsening with each iteration through a compliant congress? That we have no need to be concerned of agencies under the influences of lobbyists effecting the passage of their own agenda? Do you mean to ignore the history of infinite tax bailouts for public agencies that have no concerns of meeting expenses through the value of goods/services they provide? Do you mean to ignore the convenience of being able to write public laws favoring one and not the other? Would you wear the Ring if it slipped from Gollum's fingers to yours? I'd love to see a list of where to place my confidence in such rhetorical notions. Are you telling me the likes of Barney will suddenly develop the wisdom and capacity to moderate the excesses of others in power? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Dr. Pedersen,Consider the following, por favor. (Obama and Joe said it with fewer words....):Who's Afraid of a 'Public Plan,' and Why?Private Sector May Not Have as Much to Fear From a Public Plan as it ThinksIf private companies are better at whatever might be the task at hand, mainly because they have already accrued the benefits of prior healthy competition, why would our nation's private health insurance companies so desperately fear the presence of a public sector alternative as part of that very competition?Surely they would expect to be able to easily thrash such a public alternative in the marketplace. After all, they have the head start of being better at doing this from the outset, they have the advantage of being more nimble and responsive going forward, and the public program, whatever its final form, will be disadvantaged by the inevitable ineptitude of government. So why on earth would the private companies be worried that the public program alternative might be able to even come close to achieving their standards?To be sure, if the same public program that competes with the private entities also gets to write and enforce the rules of the competition, that might create a problem. But almost all serious observers anticipate that the public program alternative currently being proposed will not also control the regulatory framework in which services are offered; it will simply be available as another option, and will survive only if it can succeed as a genuine alternative to those private companies.Clearly, if the certain ineptitude of a public program and the obvious superiority of the private sector are true, there would be no reason for the latter to fear the former. Given the passion of such fear in today's health policy conversation, one cannot help but wonder what else might be going on here.http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/Story?id=7911531 & page=1 Sears, DC, IAYT2609 NW ThurmanPortland, Oregon 97210v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.comOn Jun 25, 2009, at 9:43 AM, cosmo wrote: re: "He was saying that it is illogical to think that one could not compete against such a business. In other words "whats to be afraid of" Do you mean you favor the type of efficiency of the CRA of 1977 that seeded the Fannie Mae crisis, increasingly worsening with each iteration through a compliant congress? That we have no need to be concerned of agencies under the influences of lobbyists effecting the passage of their own agenda? Do you mean to ignore the history of infinite tax bailouts for public agencies that have no concerns of meeting expenses through the value of goods/services they provide? Do you mean to ignore the convenience of being able to write public laws favoring one and not the other? Would you wear the Ring if it slipped from Gollum's fingers to yours? I'd love to see a list of where to place my confidence in such rhetorical notions. Are you telling me the likes of Barney will suddenly develop the wisdom and capacity to moderate the excesses of others in power? J. Pedersen DC