Private Sector is not Always Better

Source is the AP

from JoeUser Forums


We very often hear that the private sector is more efficient then government. That is one of the GOP axioms. In an earlier Blog I provided data that showed the cost to provide support in combat zones to our military is several times MORE expensive when provided by private companies then by military manpower.

Now the same thing exists in the Medicare program. Some years ago the claim was that it would be less expensive to have Medicare administered by private companies then the traditional Medicare system. About 8 of the 43 Million seniors receive their medical care from private companies like Humana. A House Subcommittee has been looking at the cost to provide health care to seniors by there private companies. What they found is that it is costing Medicare 19% MORE to provide the same medical care to seniors then the same care administered by traditional Medicare staff. That translates to an added cost of $65 Billion dollars over a five year period to have Medicare administered by private companies.

Democrats are pushing to lower the payments to private companies administering Medicare to the same cost as experienced by traditional Medicare staff. We need to reexamine this notion that the private sector can always provide service in a more cost effective manor then the government!
politics
15,995 views 45 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

If we eliminated Medicare entirely, it would be 100% efficient.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dragional

If we taxed the rich more we could balance the budget, pay down the debt, and be able to help those that NEED HELP. We could keep the promises made to the Boomers for Social Security and Medicare. All but the very rich NEED Social Security and Medicare. The Rich do not NEED tax cuts. It is a choice between WHAT the majority of people NEED and WHAT the rich WANT! I Pick NEED over WANT!
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
lets raise taxes then....but starting with your tax bracket, col....
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we taxed the rich more we could balance the budget, pay down the debt, and be able to help those that NEED HELP.


So basically you are robbing the rich to pay the poor.  Class warfare, plain and simple.


It is a choice between WHAT the majority of people NEED and WHAT the rich WANT! I Pick NEED over WANT!


What do the majority of people NEED?  Government support?  What a joke.




Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are not Robbing the Rich. They were given a Tax Cut predicated on a SURPLUS that Bush said existed and that showed they were over taxed. Since there was NO SURPLUS, the Rich were not being OVER TAXED as Bush Claimed; The Rich got something that did not NEED OR DESERVE! TIME TO TAKE IT BACK!!!!!!!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are not Robbing the Rich. They were given a Tax Cut predicated on a SURPLUS that Bush said existed and that showed they were over taxed. Since there was NO SURPLUS, the Rich were not being OVER TAXED as Bush Claimed; The Rich got something that did not NEED OR DESERVE! TIME TO TAKE IT BACK!!!!!!!


Robbing the rich, that's exactly what it is.  Socialism at it's best col.


Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDOG

Taking back something the rich did not deserve is NOT robbing them. There was NO overtaxing and there was NO justification for the huge tax cuts Bush and the GOP in Congress gave the Rich! Please tell me the Rich NEED the tax cuts and show me just how ridiculous you are!!!!!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Taking back something the rich did not deserve is NOT robbing them. There was NO overtaxing and there was NO justification for the huge tax cuts Bush and the GOP in Congress gave the Rich! Please tell me the Rich NEED the tax cuts and show me just how ridiculous you are!!!!!


It's already been shown to you how the tax cuts helps stimulate the economy, and it's also been shown to you how successful Americans re-invest their tax cuts to employ more people.  Those simple facts that you cannot grasp because you hate the rich are the real problem here.

If you want tax increases so much, why don't you start with yourself?  Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?  I doubt it.


Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
i have said on different occassions to raise taxes, but start with the Col's tax bracket....according to him, since he has not answered, he doesn't disagree? He doesn't really think raising taxes is the right way to go?

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
MythicalMino

I will be glad to give the Bush tax cuts back if we do the same for the wealthy. My tax cuts were $300 per year.

I did not get any benefit from the reduction in capital gains and divided rates. I did not benefit from the elimination of the marriage penalty and I do not have dependent children under 18.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will be glad to give the Bush tax cuts back if we do the same for the wealthy. My tax cuts were $300 per year.


mine were much greater. and i'd gladly submit them if i was confident that every child in this nation would get decent health care. we can argue about taking care of adults as a seperate issue. but especially the "anti roe v wade" crowd should not endorse eliminating a woman's right to choose and then abandoning the baby that comes out to fend for themselves.

by the way, our family lives under the federal plan. my wife (for those who don't know already) works for the fed. and i believe every parent should have the opportunity we have to take care of our children in ways that we could never afford if it wasn't for insurance.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with the things you would like but I want the taxes returned to the pre Bush cuts so we do not hand our children a country in so much debt that it will jeopardize their future!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

If we taxed the rich more we could balance the budget, pay down the debt, and be able to help those that NEED HELP. We could keep the promises made to the Boomers for Social Security and Medicare. All but the very rich NEED Social Security and Medicare. The Rich do not NEED tax cuts. It is a choice between WHAT the majority of people NEED and WHAT the rich WANT! I Pick NEED over WANT!

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
-Karl Marx

You truly are a socialist.

 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dragional

You truly are a socialist. That is a LIE. During the 1990's you are saying America was a communist state? You are full of BS. You just want to keep more of your surplus while the poor and disabled have nothing and our country piles up the debt so future generations are burdened by our refusal to PAY FOR WHAT WE SPEND!
It is very basic-- If Congress and the President agree to spend "X" they must tax "X"!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
you accuse Dragonal of being greedy via the free service his "greediness" supplies? classic. I am waiting for when Dragonal kicks you....or makes only you pay.

As for the tax cuts....you want to raise taxes, and at the same time, raise spending, so we have to raise more taxes, so we can raise spending, so we raise taxes....but meanwhile, only the rich pay for those who don't work, so those who don't work can recieve that which they do not deserve.

I PERSONALLY KNOW ppl who refuse to work. They recieve hundreds of dollars from the government, hundreds of dollars for food assistance. They do not work....they say that they have no plans of even looking for a job. Why should they? By their reasoning, if they do, they will lose what they are given. That is what you are promoting. You do not promote that ppl work, but rather, the government penalize those who do work, to reward those who do not.

The funny thing about all of this is? Those ppl that do not work rob the system and take the benefits from those who do work and truly do need it. And that is what you promote. You have already clearly said so much. You do not want to cut spending. You want to only raise taxes...and then, primarily on the rich. If the money truly was put there for those who worked, but still needed help occassionally, then fine....but that is not how the system works.

The Republicans want the rich to get richer, and the Democrats want the poor to get poorer. I would rather the rich stay rich, at least that is something I can attain to become, rich. I don't want to become poorer. Hence, I do not vote Democrat.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
MythicalMino

The Republicans want the rich to get richer, and the Democrats want the poor to get poorer. I agree that the Republicans want the Rich to become Richer. The Democrats want to see that those WHO NEED help get the help they need. I do not want to hand out our tax money to those that refuse to work. Where it becomes a problem is when you have people that do not work and have children. To refuse to help children that have parents that will not do their part is saying that the innocent are to be ignored! That is not what I believe we should do and it is certainly not the Christian thing to do.

My problem with the position Dragional takes is that he would turn his back on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which are needed. Almost ALL retired Americans could not afford health care without Medicare and they are too old to seek alternate solutions. All but the top 20% or so also need their Social Security. Dragional has said balance the budget by cutting or eliminating the programs the VAST MAJORITY NEED so people with far more then they will EVER NEED can have a little more. You can call that what you want. I do not agree with that and the VAST majority of Americans would not cut off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid so the wealthy can keep their tax cuts.

Also the issue that none of the Bushies will address is that the Bush tax cuts were predicated on a LIE-- there was a SURPLUS that we needed to returned to the American Taxpayers. Just like WMD there was NO SURPLUS!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

You truly are a socialist. That is a LIE. During the 1990's you are saying America was a communist state? You are full of BS. You just want to keep more of your surplus while the poor and disabled have nothing and our country piles up the debt so future generations are burdened by our refusal to PAY FOR WHAT WE SPEND!

If I quote you insisting that we tax and spend based purely based on what people can pay to give to people who "need" (you capitalized the word "need" 5 times in the one paragraph I quoted) then yes, you are a socialist.

Your philosophy is literally text book socialism.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm going to quote Gene's rant again:

If we taxed the rich more we could balance the budget, pay down the debt, and be able to help those that NEED HELP. We could keep the promises made to the Boomers for Social Security and Medicare. All but the very rich NEED Social Security and Medicare. The Rich do not NEED tax cuts. It is a choice between WHAT the majority of people NEED and WHAT the rich WANT! I Pick NEED over WANT!

Gene says taht the rich should pay because they have the money and that that money should be given to those based on "need".

This is classic socialism.

Again:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
-Karl Marx

If someone wants to explain how Gene's statement doesn't match with what the founder of Communism said, I'd love to hear it.  Gene insisting it's a "lie" to state that Gene is a socialist (at best but really he's almost a classic communist) is unimpressive.

 

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

What I am saying is that we need about $600-700 Billion MORE per year to meet the spending Congress and the President approve and to begin repaying the National debt. I said that added tax should come from those that have the ability to pay more without creating problems for them to live and meet their obligations. The top 20% do not live from pay check to pay check and a slightly increased tax will not have a negative impact on spending. They will pay the added tax from their Surplus which will only lower the growth rate of their accumulated wealth! The fact that the economy and the wealthy did so well during the 1990’s when rates were higher prove that slightly higher taxes will not harm the economy or the wealthy. Please do not tell me that investment will decline because we already know that the increased tax revenue from the investment taking place because of the Bush Tax cuts to the wealthy is only offsetting ½ the lost tax revenue from the tax cuts. The Comptroller General has documented that result. You can also not make the case that the wealthy NEED the added money from the Bush tax cuts!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dragional

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
-Karl Marx

If someone wants to explain how Gene's statement doesn't match with what the founder of Communism said, I'd love to hear it. Gene insisting it's a "lie" to state that Gene is a socialist (at best but really he's almost a classic communist) is unimpressive.

The result of returning to the tax rates of the 1990's would not produce anything like, ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” In fact the distribution of wealth would be altered only a few % and that would result in the top 10% with 88% of the wealth rather then the 90% they currently have. That is NOTHING like Karl Marx suggested! You are attempting to make a Mountain out of a grain of sand!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Congress and the President agree to spend "X" they must tax "X"!


Actually col your theory is more like this.


Congress and the President agree to spend "X", then people who are successful need to pay "X".


Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gene - read carefully:

You are the one who believes that the government should take from those to give it to people who "need" it.

Your argument for not cutting programs is because it would hurt people who "need it".  

This is classic marxism. For you, the government taking one people to give to people based on "need" takes precedence over balancing the budget. That makes you a socialist.

As soon as you start basing your position on concepts like "need" you've already lost. 

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

What is wrong with paying for what we spend? Who better to pay then those that can afford to pay?


Dragional

This is classic Marxism. For you, the government taking one people to give to people based on "need" takes precedence over balancing the budget. That makes you a socialist. Anyone that can call this country a socialistic state with the wealth distribution that existed at the higher tax levels does not know what they are talking about. A country where the top 1 % has 51% of the wealth and where the top 10% had almost 90% of the wealth is as far from Communism as you can get!

I do not claim helping people takes precedence over balancing the budget. What I said we need to balance the budget including help to those in need by a tax system that generates enough revenue to equal our total spending including help to those that need it!


Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are unwilling to cut programs that help "the poor" in order to balance the budget.

You have said this many times.  Therefore, giving money to poor people is more important to you than balancing the budget.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is wrong with paying for what we spend? Who better to pay then those that can afford to pay?


Nothng is wrong paying for what we spend.  What is wrong that you are picking out a class of people to pay for it just because you think they can "afford it" without realizing the consequences.