I know that makes a nice headline. But it's almost like health Care and tech businesses are completely different things.
You mean like Bell, Standard Oil and Microsoft?
What's your poont?
Those businesses had similar traits that made the government want to break them up. So I'm not sure how they come into the conversation of Government run medical insurance.
You said, "health Care and tech businesses."
Yes, managing health Care is different than deciding whether a tech business is a monopoly. And?
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Damone! So many big words. Are you trying to sound smart or just pandering for upvotes??!!
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Damone! So many big words. Are you trying to sound smart or just pandering for upvotes??!!
Imagine caring about this!!
Just admit you’re wrong and I will gladly have a larger conversation about this.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
No. It’s not. The government has made sure it’s not a competitive environment.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
No. It’s not. The government has made sure it’s not a competitive environment.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.
So is government intervention in the system. As I recall you claim you voted for Reagan. Check out his speech on medicare in the 60's
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
In a complete vacuum where you only measure the billing on the side of the office having to submit for billing, sure. One payer is easier to deal with than 100 payers. It's not as if that one payer then nothing else to do though and as if there aren't other economic costs. Otherwise, why wouldn't this economic system be used universally? Why not have the government be a single payer for all sorts of things individuals buy? Single payer groceries would also be more efficient right? We could eliminate the "administrative costs" associated with a grocer having to accept visa, mastercard, ammex, snap, cash, etc.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees.
No one should argue that you can eliminate transaction costs. But no one should argue against reducing them either. Single payer does reduce them even though it can’t reduce them to zero.
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.
So is government intervention in the system. As I recall you claim you voted for Reagan. Check out his speech on medicare in the 60's
We agree that government intervened in the system decades ago. I understand you oppose Medicare for All. Do you want to end Medicare for Any?
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.
Go on, elaborate.
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.
You mean the current environment that the government created that killed the open market for privately bought health insurance?
Government fucks up the market, claims the market is the problem, convinces people more government is required. Brilliant!
When did this “fucking up” happen? The issues here are decades old.
So is government intervention in the system. As I recall you claim you voted for Reagan. Check out his speech on medicare in the 60's
We agree that government intervened in the system decades ago. I understand you oppose Medicare for All. Do you want to end Medicare for Any?
How about we end medicare for the didn't pay into the system folks?
Comments
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results.
Imagine caring about this!!
I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
A state monopoly also has no potential competition unlike a private sector monopoly. It has dis-incentives to innovate and real incentives to resist cost cutting and anything that would decrease it's budget or employees.