Health Care reform

[BigMoneyNacku]

 

I know this might be hard for some of you fellas, but lets keep political views OUT of this thread.

 

 

I'm curious about your opinions about the Health Care issue itself, regardless of which crooked faction is pushing it. If you haven't read up on it and don't know the facts, you should refrain. I'm looking for serious opinions from people around my age, as it could affect us quite heavily.

 

 

I personally don't think it's a bad idea. Anything that will force insurance companies to stop price gouging will be a good thing. I currently pay over 300.00 a month for accident coverage on myself and my son. It's not even full health care, but it's all I can afford due to the crazy prices they ask.

 

What say you?

[aZyOuThInKeYeIz]

I believe the System needs reform...

 

But not in the form I see it happening.. As Crusty said...

 

It needs to reform the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Companies out of business, and needs to be ran by a non-profit entity.

[X_-GHOST-_X]

BigMoneyNacku ]

 

I know this might be hard for some of you fellas, but lets keep political views OUT of this thread.

 

 

I'm curious about your opinions about the Health Care issue itself, regardless of which crooked faction is pushing it. If you haven't read up on it and don't know the facts, you should refrain. I'm looking for serious opinions from people around my age, as it could affect us quite heavily.

 

 

I personally don't think it's a bad idea. Anything that will force insurance companies to stop price gouging will be a good thing. I currently pay over 300.00 a month for accident coverage on myself and my son. It's not even full health care, but it's all I can afford due to the crazy prices they ask.

 

What say you?

 

OMB HOME • PRESIDENT'S BUDGET • FACT SHEETS

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FISCAL 2010 BUDGET

Transforming and Modernizing America’s Health Care System

 

One of the biggest drains on American pocketbooks is the high cost of health care. Many families are one illness or accident away from financial ruin. Health insurance costs reduce workers’ take-home pay to a degree that is both underappreciated and unnecessarily large. At the same time, health care costs are consuming a growing share of federal and state government budgets. The United States spends over $2.2 trillion on health care each year—almost $8,000 per person. That number represents approximately 16 percent of the total economy and is growing rapidly. If we do not act soon, by 2017, almost 20 percent of the economy—more than $4 trillion—will be spent on health care.

 

At the same time that we strive to contain costs, we cannot stand by as tens of millions of Americans lack health care coverage. An unhealthy workforce leads to an unhealthy economy, and moving to provide all Americans with health insurance is not only a moral imperative, but it is also essential to a more effective and efficient health care system.

 

For too long, we have recognized the problems with health care, but have not taken responsibility for them. We can no longer afford to wait. That is why the President has already begun the process of reforming health care by:

 

Instituting Temporary Provisions to Make Health Care Coverage More Affordable for Americans Who Have Lost Their Jobs. As part of the Recovery Act of 2009, the Administration will provide Americans who lose their jobs or have recently lost their jobs a tax credit to keep their health insurance through COBRA. These steps are estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to help provide coverage for approximately seven million Americans.

Increasing Health Care Coverage for Children. In one of his first official acts, the President signed into law the reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)— bipartisan legislation vetoed twice by the previous President. It provides the support, options, and incentives for States to provide coverage for an additional four million children on average in CHIP and Medicaid who are now uninsured by FY 2013. The President is committed to implementing this law quickly and aggressively to help families whose children are at risk of losing coverage in this weak economy.

Computerizing America’s Health Records in Five Years. The current, paper-based medical records system that relies on patients’ memory and reporting of their medical history is prone to error, time-consuming, costly, and wasteful. With rigorous privacy standards in place to protect sensitive medical record, we will embark on an effort to computerize all Americans’ health records in five years. This effort will help prevent medical errors, and improve health care quality, and is a necessary step in starting to modernize the American health care system and reduce health care costs.

Developing and Disseminating Information on Effective Medical Interventions. Medicine is changing so rapidly it is almost impossible for any individual physician to keep abreast of all the latest research studies. Without the most recent information on effective treatments, it is increasingly more difficult for a doctor to give a patient the type of individualized treatment he or she deserves. To help physicians get the information they need to provide the highest quality care for patients, the Recovery Act of 2009 devotes $1.1 billion to comparative effectiveness research—the reviews of evidence on competing medical interventions and new head-to-head trials. The information from this research will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system.

Investing in Prevention and Wellness. Over a third of all illness is the result of poor diet, lack of exercise, and smoking. Indeed, obesity alone leads to many expensive, chronic conditions including high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer. Furthermore, there are important vaccines that can prevent diseases, and screening tests that can detect cancer and other diseases at an early stage when they are more curable. Yet many Americans are not getting these effective treatments. The President has devoted in the Recovery Act an unprecedented $1 billion for prevention and wellness interventions. This will dramatically expand community-based interventions proven to reduce chronic diseases.

Transforming and Modernizing America’s Health Care System

To build on these steps, the Budget sets aside a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over 10 years that will be dedicated towards financing reforms to our health care system. The President recognizes that while a very large amount of money and a major commitment, $630 billion is not sufficient to fully fund comprehensive reform. But this is a first crucial step in that effort, and he is committed to working with the Congress to find additional resources to devote to health care reform. The Administration will explore all serious ideas that, in a fiscally responsible manner, achieve the common goals of constraining costs, expanding access, and improving quality.

 

To achieve these goals and finance reform, the President looks forward to working with the Congress over the coming year, and as he does, the President will adhere to the following set of eight principles:

 

Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. People will be allowed to keep their own doctor and their employer-based health plan.

Make Health Coverage Affordable. The plan must reduce waste and fraud, high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, and other inefficiencies that drive up costs with no added health benefits.

Protect Families’ Financial Health. The plan must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness.

Invest in Prevention and Wellness. The plan must invest in public health measures proven to reduce cost drivers in our system—such as obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and smoking—as well as guarantee access to proven preventive treatments.

Provide Portability of Coverage. People should not be locked into their job just to secure health coverage, and no American should be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.

Aim for Universality. The plan must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.

Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care. The plan must ensure the implementation of proven patient safety measures and provide incentives for changes in the delivery system to reduce unnecessary variability in patient care. It must support the widespread use of health information technology with rigorous privacy protections and the development of data on the effectiveness of medical interventions to improve the quality of care delivered.

Maintain Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability. The plan must pay for itself by reducing the level of cost growth, improving productivity, and dedicating additional sources of revenue.

Financing Health Care Reform. The reserve fund is financed by a combination of rebalancing the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more as well as specific health care savings in three areas: promoting efficiency and accountability, aligning incentives towards quality and better care, and encouraging shared responsibility. Taken together, the health care savings would total $316 billion over 10 years while improving the quality and efficiency of health care, without negatively affecting the care Americans receive. These savings include:

 

Reducing Medicare Overpayments to Private Insurers Through Competitive Payments.

Under current law, Medicare overpays Medicare Advantage plans by 14 percent more on average than what Medicare spends for beneficiaries enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service program. The Administration believes it’s time to stop this waste and will replace the current mechanism to establish payments with a competitive system in which payments would be based upon an average of plans’ bids submitted to Medicare. This would allow the market, not Medicare, to set the reimbursement limits, and save taxpayers more than $175 billion over 10 years, as well as reduce Part B premiums. These overpayments threaten Medicare’s finances and increase the premiums paid by participants in traditional Medicare.

 

Reducing Drug Prices. Prescription drug costs are high and rising, causing too many Americans to skip doses, split pills, or not take needed medication altogether. The Administration will prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers by prohibiting anticompetitive agreements and collusion between brand name and generic drug manufacturers intended to keep generic drugs off the market.

The Administration will accelerate access to make affordable generic biologic drugs available through the establishment of a workable regulatory, scientific, and legal pathway for generic versions of biologic drugs. In order to retain incentives for research and development for the innovation of breakthrough products, a period of exclusivity would be guaranteed for the original innovator product, which is generally consistent with the principles in the Hatch-Waxman law for traditional products.

 

Additionally, brand biologic manufacturers would be prohibited from reformulating existing products into new products to restart the exclusivity process, a process known as ever-greening.

 

Finally, the Budget will bring down the drug costs of Medicaid by increasing the Medicaid drug rebate for brand-name drugs from 15.1 percent to 22.1 percent of the Average Manufacturer Price, apply the additional rebate to new drug formulations, and allow States to collect rebates on drugs provided through Medicaid managed care organizations. All the savings would be devoted to the health care reserve fund.

 

Improving Medicare and Medicaid Payment Accuracy. The Government Accountability

Office (GAO) has labeled Medicare as "high risk" due to billions of dollars lost to overpayments and fraud each year. To save Medicare and Medicaid, increase quality, and make sure Medicare and Medicaid patients get the care they deserve, we need to rein in these abuses and use this money for reform. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will address vulnerabilities presented by Medicare and Medicaid, including Medicare Advantage and the prescription drug benefit (Part D). CMS will be able to respond more rapidly to emerging program integrity vulnerabilities across these programs through an increased capacity to identify excessive payments and new processes for identifying and correcting problems.

 

Improving Care after Hospitalizations and Reduce Hospital Readmission Rates. Nearly

18 percent of hospitalization of Medicare beneficiaries resulted in the readmission of patients who had been discharged in the hospital within the last 30 days. Sometimes the readmission could not have been prevented, but many of these readmissions are avoidable. To improve this situation, hospitals will receive bundled payments that cover not just the hospitalization, but care for certain post-acute providers the 30 days of care after the hospitalization, and hospitals with high rates of readmission will be paid less if patients are re-admitted to the hospital within the same 30-day period. This combination of incentives and penalties should lead to better care after a hospital stay and result in fewer readmissions—saving roughly $26 billion of wasted money over 10 years. The money saved will also be contributed to the reserve fund for health care reform.

 

Expanding the Hospital Quality Improvement Program. The health care system tends to pay for quantity of services not quality. Experts have recommended that hospitals and doctors be paid based on delivering high quality care, or what is called "pay for performance." The President’s Budget will link a portion of Medicare payments for acute in-patient hospital services to hospitals’ performance on specific quality measures. This program will improve the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, and the higher quality will save over $12 billion over 10 years. Again, the money saved will be contributed to the Reserve Fund for health care reform.

Reforming the Physician Payment System to Improve Quality and Efficiency. The Administration believes that the current physician payment system, while it has served to limit spending to a degree, needs to be reformed so that physicians are paid for providing high-quality care rather than simply for more procedures and exams. Thus, while the baseline reflects our best estimate of what the Congress has done in recent years, we are not suggesting that should be the future policy.

As part of health care reform, the Administration would support comprehensive, but fiscally responsible, reforms to the payment formula. The Administration believes Medicare and the country need to move toward a system in which doctors are paid for high-quality care rather than simply more care.

 

Reducing Itemized Deduction Rate for Families With Incomes Over $250,000. Lowering health care costs and expanding health insurance coverage will require additional revenue. In the health reform policy discussions that have taken place over the past few years, a wide range of revenue options have been discussed—and these options are all worthy of serious discussion as the Administration works with the Congress to enact health care reform. The Administration’s Budget includes a proposal to limit the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to 28 percent— and the initial reserve fund would be funded in part through this provision. This provision would raise $318 billion over 10 years.

[PSYCHOFACTOR]

Medicaid Wouldn't cover an emergency operation my pops had when he collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. Now he owes $150,000 and he is 60 years old. If they go after our house we would be homeless. So yes it would be nice not to have to pay so much. It would be nice if he was taken care of and was able to walk away with out the headache over his head. But on the otherhand if I heard this story and it was a person I didn't know or give a crap about I would think why should I have to pay such high taxes so this guy can get a free ride? Its easy to say that until it hits home. This country gives Billions to Africa to fight AIDS but cant throw a hard working American Citizen a break so he can retire to a crappy social security in a year and a half in peace. So yes we need reform.But at whet cost?

[HairyNiples]

It is in my opinion with me being a Canadian(that has known nothing but a superior health care plan provided by our government) that you guys down there have been getting ripped of for many years. You guys should have some kind of reform down there. It works up here.

[BigMoneyNacku]

Crusty, chill with the bs. I asked you to leave it at the door.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Way to delete your posts.

 

 

 

 

 

[Crusty_Demons]

OH... Well in that case I love Health care reform... Everyone should get some ;D

 

I'm really not sure what I said but I won't post here anymore.

[Red0ctobeR]

How is that BS? I don't get it, you said nothing political, it doesn't look political.

 

Here is my opinion. You guys want cheaper healthcare. More importantly you want healthcare to fit your needs. Guess what I do to. I can afford my own healthcare( which I am not knocking anyone who doesn't have this luxury, but I using myself as an example).

 

I am 29 years old going on 30. I rarely see the doctor, but recently have had a new child. so she needs to see the physician every once in a while and we had a some issues after the baby was born. We pay the difference right now to the hospital, which I have no problem with. I think there are somethings that are priced like I was in an amusement park buying a beer, but that is capitalism. Some things are expensive. Liek I said I pay for MY healthcare and no one elses. Which I use as a preventative measure.

 

Now with the Kennedy Healthcare EVERYONE will be paying for healthcare. At least everyone with a job and who knows what else that can be taxed. See what some people don't know or don't investigate is that according to the CBO this healthcare package offered by the governemtn will cost ~ 2trillion dollars just to start up. That doesn't include expenses once things start rolling.

 

Now you may ask yourself, how does that get paid for? Or maybe you don't care. Well it will come in tax hikes and various other money making governmental schemes, such as Cap and Trade. Which is basically a gas tax, which the government won't be directly putting upon us, but will more or less be put on our shoulders because the oil companies won't just eat the taxes, that is how they make money, and no they are not EVIL because of that. For those of you who don't run a business you may not understand, but those who have put their blood sweat and tears in something they call their own will know that you don't become successful by eating the taxes or materials or whatever. You become successful by differing the cost elsewhere. IE the customers.

 

That is either here nor there. Long story short EVERYONE will pay for healthcare, it will be MORE expensive. iI am not sure how much more, but there will be one thing that will be for sure, you won't have the option to not carry it. It will be taken out of your taxes and you will be paying for everyone else, even the guys that don't pay taxes, such as illegal Aliens.

 

If you want to sign up for that then fine, I will not sit by and let the government take over my country. They need to leave us be and let us figure this out for ourselves.

[DK_MaluNYMets]

I think 100 percent we need HEALTH CARE REFORM. But it needs to be done the right way. Not pushed through by any party but to sit down and actually determine what is good for the people. The government needs to work for us not operate as a business when it comes to health care. The people that get screwed over are people who are in the lowest percentage of the plans. Their the ones who are hit by the insurance companies "escape clauses" which makes them pay out of pocket. These clauses are still there in a new plan that is coming. It needs to be about saving lives not "cause efficiency". I work as a pharmacist and I see every day patients not even getting their medication because it is so expensive. These are LIFE CHANGING drugs that these patients need. But how will they pay for them? They have family they need to feed they can't just sell everything and worry about themselves. Universal health care with no limits BUT a very strong checks and balance system so no one fakes prescriptions or illnesses to get money. Also educating the youth about foods they eat, exercising, helping everybody stay in shape so they aren't in this mess.

 

That's an honest opinion. It's not about democrats or republicans its about saving humanity.

[Crusty_Demons]

BigMoneyNacku ]

Crusty, chill with the bs. I asked you to leave it at the door.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Way to delete your posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just wanted to get all of my "BS" out of your thread. Now you can be in peace with little to no opposition. I'm sorry but there is always going to be another side in a debate or conversation. Health care reform is extremely political and I tried to leave it out as much as I could. I didn't discuss any political parties nor did I bash any political parties or politicians specifically I referenced the government as a whole.

 

 

 

[PSYCHOFACTOR]

I read Crusty's post and it seemed fine to me. The one with the tax % between US and Canadian tax rates. What was wrong with that?

[BigMoneyNacku]

I'm not going to argue about it, but that socialist comment was the "bs" I was referring to. That's how these threads always spiral out of control, one comment from one side and all hell breaks loose. You didn't have to delete it all for one thing. You had good points in there, you just went and threw in a barb.

 

 

 

[Red0ctobeR]

Nevermind, not getting political on these forums is SO frustrating.

[WARPIG]

I think life is about options and choice. I think the more "choices and options" we have the better off our country will be. I'm for a Govt Option.... however that looks.

[Covert-OPs_]

There are few segments of the economy that can have a private system survive once there is a public system. Generally speaking, public assistance/public systems offer services for nothing. This trend creates a problem for private entities because they need to profit on some level to sustain their services. And while many chastise companies for trying to profit for services rendered, it is the profit that drives the higher quality service, it's the profit that drives efficiencies, it's what drives the incentive to be the best.

 

Now in a perfect world the public option would be great because we'd be paying nothing(perceived notion because essentially our tax dollars will go to pay for said services) but the reality is that public systems/Gov't run programs rarely if ever are run efficiently. There is never any incentive to provide quality service, there is NEVER incentive to improve any aspect of the services rendered. As a result, you're ultimately creating a monopoly and if we don't all understand by now that a monopoly in any segment of our economy is a bad thing, than the level of knowledge/intelligence in this country is very discouraging.

[lX-OSCEOLA-Xl]

Covert-OPs_ ]

and if we don't all understand by now that a monopoly in any segment of our economy is a bad thing, than the level of knowledge/intelligence in this country is very discouraging.

 

THere are monopolies called natural monopolies. Where the fixed cost is huge. These natural monopolies are regulated by local governments.

 

Examples include ... cable companies, power utilities, phone companies. That is why there is only generally only one company to get cable internet from.

 

The decision has been made, in some parts of the economy, monopolies are preferred to competition. Could you imagine two companies competing to provide cable service?

 

Is healthcare a natural monopoly?

 

 

Me personally, I do not like these regulated monopolies ... but we do have parts of the economy where we prefer these monopolies to private competition.

[Deutscher75]

I'm all for health care reform but I do not agree at all with what Obama and his administration are pushing. By socializing our health care system, it's going to do 2 things because of how corporatized medicine has become like every other American industry.

 

What I foresee happening with the current reform plan is this:

 

As the government will be the primary supplier of health care services to the citizens, each person will be subject to a panel of advisors who will determine which medical services a person can receive and when. And the legislation that has been proposed will base much of that decision of who receives treatment based upon how productive a citizen is to society. i.e. if you have Autism, your dicked, but if you're a full-time worker in a major industry, that broken leg that needs screws and pins...no problem!

 

2nd what will happen is this:

 

The best providers of medical services, the top-notch hospitals and doctors, will all become privatized and make themselves exclusive for those who have the money to pay for the services provided by these top-notch facilities. Which will in-turn subject everyone else or the "average citizen" to the half-ass doctors and hospitals that would stay on board under the Federal program.

 

What this means is that not only will your healthcare be very selective in what services you receive, the healthcare you do receive will be half-ass at best.

 

The reform that should take place is in the pharmaceutical and hospital service industry. It's already been said that price gouging needs to end and that would resolve 85% of the problem.

 

I'd rather pay for my own healthcare, then pay for everyone, including the son-a-bitches who sit on their ass all day long and collect on welfare or who just don't work when they have no reason to not work, while I bust my ass barely making ends meat trying to provide decent living and healthcare for my wife and new son.

 

I agree with RedOctober, the Government needs to stay the hell out of this, except when it comes to regulating prices on pharmaceuticals and hospital prices.

 

On the political spectrum in concern with this and other issues where our government is turning us into a socialist/fascist state, we all need to stop being "Good Republicans" and "Good Democrats" and start being GOOD AMERICANS! So that we can protect ourselves from the Government which we are supposed to give it's power to, and to protect the rights of the average citizen.

[Red0ctobeR]

Lockdown You will get hi-5s from me everyday now. I really liked your post.

 

 

[lX-OSCEOLA-Xl]

Lockdown ]

 

each person will be subject to a panel of advisors who will determine which medical services a person can receive and when.

 

 

This souonds like my current HMO.

[Deutscher75]

xRed0ctobeRx ]

Lockdown You will get hi-5s from me everyday now. I really liked your post.

 

 

 

Likewise my friend!

[BigMoneyNacku]

Nice post Lockdown.

 

You might be onto the best solution there. I just know something needs done. It's out of control, and you are right on about the price gouging.

[Covert-OPs_]

lX-LUCIFER-Xl ]

Covert-OPs_ ]

and if we don't all understand by now that a monopoly in any segment of our economy is a bad thing, than the level of knowledge/intelligence in this country is very discouraging.

 

THere are monopolies called natural monopolies. Where the fixed cost is huge. These natural monopolies are regulated by local governments.

 

Examples include ... cable companies, power utilities, phone companies. That is why there is only generally only one company to get cable internet from.

 

The decision has been made, in some parts of the economy, monopolies are preferred to competition. Could you imagine two companies competing to provide cable service?

 

Is healthcare a natural monopoly?

 

 

Me personally, I do not like these regulated monopolies ... but we do have parts of the economy where we prefer these monopolies to private competition.

 

Who is we? I believe in complete unadulterated competition. What would be bad about having multiple companies providing you with cable service? Would the sky fall? What would be the negative outcomes?

[lX-OSCEOLA-Xl]

Covert-OPs_ ]

lX-LUCIFER-Xl ]

Covert-OPs_ ]

and if we don't all understand by now that a monopoly in any segment of our economy is a bad thing, than the level of knowledge/intelligence in this country is very discouraging.

 

THere are monopolies called natural monopolies. Where the fixed cost is huge. These natural monopolies are regulated by local governments.

 

Examples include ... cable companies, power utilities, phone companies. That is why there is only generally only one company to get cable internet from.

 

The decision has been made, in some parts of the economy, monopolies are preferred to competition. Could you imagine two companies competing to provide cable service?

 

Is healthcare a natural monopoly?

 

 

Me personally, I do not like these regulated monopolies ... but we do have parts of the economy where we prefer these monopolies to private competition.

 

Who is we? I believe in complete unadulterated competition. What would be bad about having multiple companies providing you with cable service? Would the sky fall? What would be the negative outcomes?

 

There is a large fixed cost to get in the cable business. Five cable companies would have to provide their own cable line into your residence. For power companies, each power company would need to have its own power line system. COuld you imagine five sets of power lines connected to your house? Or what about competitive sewage?

 

I am just saying here, the decision has been made somewhere along the line that natural monopolies should not be subject to competition and need to be regulated. I live in Florida. I have one land line phone company to chose from, one power company to get my power, and one cable company for TV. The idea is that the large fixed cost to entry makes it almost impossible for new companies to compete. The barriers to entry are to high for private competition.

 

Some make that argument for healthcare. The fixed cost is so high, it is a natural monopoly.

 

 

I am just making the point that there are plenty of monopolies all over the country that we deal with every day. I personally support competition in these areas. I hate having no choice. There is competitive power in new england and northern virgina, I wish we had it in Florida.

[Covert-OPs_]

lX-LUCIFER-Xl ]

Covert-OPs_ ]

lX-LUCIFER-Xl ]

Covert-OPs_ ]

and if we don't all understand by now that a monopoly in any segment of our economy is a bad thing, than the level of knowledge/intelligence in this country is very discouraging.

 

THere are monopolies called natural monopolies. Where the fixed cost is huge. These natural monopolies are regulated by local governments.

 

Examples include ... cable companies, power utilities, phone companies. That is why there is only generally only one company to get cable internet from.

 

The decision has been made, in some parts of the economy, monopolies are preferred to competition. Could you imagine two companies competing to provide cable service?

 

Is healthcare a natural monopoly?

 

 

Me personally, I do not like these regulated monopolies ... but we do have parts of the economy where we prefer these monopolies to private competition.

 

Who is we? I believe in complete unadulterated competition. What would be bad about having multiple companies providing you with cable service? Would the sky fall? What would be the negative outcomes?

 

There is a large fixed cost to get in the cable business. Five cable companies would have to provide their own cable line into your residence. For power companies, each power company would need to have its own power line system. COuld you imagine five sets of power lines connected to your house? Or what about competitive sewage?

 

I am just saying here, the decision has been made somewhere along the line that natural monopolies should not be subject to competition and need to be regulated. I live in Florida. I have one land line phone company to chose from, one power company to get my power, and one cable company for TV. The idea is that the large fixed cost to entry makes it almost impossible for new companies to compete. The barriers to entry are to high for private competition.

 

"The idea" limits someones ability to do it better than everyone else. I too live in Florida(and with the exception for phone I do not have any other options as you stated) and I think that it is a tragedy that an elected official or otherwise can dictate how many companies can operate in any sector of the economy. You mention sewage and I do feel there are certain things that are better handled by local Govt's however in my opinion that should be VERY LIMITED. As far as monopolies are concerned they should be completely unavailable, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. Someone, somewhere that pretends to know better for the population as a whole, has created such a term.

 

lX-LUCIFER-Xl ]Some make that argument for healthcare. The fixed cost is so high, it is a natural monopoly.

 

 

I am just making the point that there are plenty of monopolies all over the country that we deal with every day. I personally support competition in these areas. I hate having no choice. There is competitive power in new england and northern virgina, I wish we had it in Florida.

 

As with your above statement, why should anyone be able to determine that the fixed costs to start a business is too high and as a result create a "natural monopoly"? If I have the money, the means, intelligence and determination to create the best insurance company in the U.S nothing should stop me but myself! What you're saying is that there is some official somewhere that is trying to protect me from creating a company because the fixed costs maybe too high for me to do it. That's my problem not any public officials!

 

While there are many monopolies across the country it does not mean that they should exist. Some people may think that politicians know better but I am not one. Being a business owner and the former Vice President of another company I can tell you that the majority of these people are clueless. The overwhelming majority are career bureaucrats that have never run any successful organization. There is no way they should be making social policies, economic or anything else that infringes on the rights of the people(IMO of course).

 

Just look at how some states are leasing out roads to private companies, something similar could be done with power lines, cable lines, etc, to anyone that wanted to get "in the biz". Obviously there is planning that needs to take place but that is something that business owners NEED to be involved in(not dumb politicians). Link Here People can continue to live in a bubble and pretend that things like "natural monopolies"(which is impossible) are a good thing but when it comes to free market economics they never will be.

 

To the OP, there is no way to separate this topic from politics because Nationalized Heathcare is an expansion of Gov't that serves to empower more politicians on both sides of the isle. I'll leave you all with a great American and his thoughts of socialized medicine(which is what we're really talking about here).

 

Video Here

[Chili327]

+1 for Ronnie. ;D