Then forget "compete". It's about undue advantage due to cost savings. Reduce it to its simplest terms: Government doesn't have to add profit into its overhead--so they eliminate that cost to the consumer. Private industry doesn't have to match civil service benefits--so they eliminate that cost to the consumer. Advantage to neither. It's a wash.
Clearly, people have a choice to work wherever they can. But it's foolish to think that people can work wherever they want. You really think that someone with no education to speak of and a work history consisting of nothing more than gas stations and fast-food joints can just suddenly go waltzing into some cush day-job with benefits? As much as we like to deny it, people of all socioeconomic strata simply don't have the same opportunities. In a perfect world, they would. And in a perfect world, there would be enough charitable people and organizations to account for those who can't provide for themselves, and this whole conversation wouldn't be necessary. But you and I both know that's not the case. The way you put it, everyone should be able to afford healthcare, but they are simply choosing not to. While there are zillions of lazy people who are content with their crappy jobs, there are zillions who are doing the best that they possibly can, and it still ain't enough. I also hear a lot of talk about how a public option would 'price' private insurers out of business. This is where the 'free-market' side of the argument comes in. But I also hear a lot about how awful government care would be in the absence of true competition. So, if that's the case, wouldn't the private insurers remain in business by virtue of offering a supreme product? Isn't that how it the market is supposed to function?
There's the good counter argument. It's hard to say what effect the healthcare bill would have on insurers until we know the entirety of it, but time will tell if it's truly a wash. I have no issues personally with putting another healthcare option on the table. I just want to make sure that it's an option, and not a requirement. Time will tell if the mere existence of a public option will reduce employee's options.
People can work wherever they are qualified. We agree. No but I am suggesting they can better themselves to become qualified for those jobs. Again, there are no laws that dictate people have to remain uneducated and unqualified. I disagree. The oppurtunities are there for anyone. Some are in a better position to seize them, and others will have to work harder. I'm not saying the path to developing marketable skills is easy for all, but I am saying it is worth it for all. No, I am saying that some don't have the skills they need to get a good job, but no one is stopping them from getting those skills. I understand some hardworking people are poor, and that sucks. It is their responsibility to change that though. The public plan doesn't have to worry about cost and profit. They can just take more of our money to keep the thing affloat. They can be wonderfully inefficient and still have artifically cheap prices hurting private indsutry.
Let's play this out to the end game. Let's say that every single person of working age in America was highly qualified and motivated. Where are all the jobs going to come from to put every one of those people who are qualified into a job worth of their education and ambition? There are a finite number of positions that are well paying and have benefits. I agree with your personal responsibility premise that the individual should not be waiting around for the government to bail them out. On an individual by individual level, that single person can take steps to better their position in life and get a better lot. However, not EVERY single person as a whole can, because there wouldn't be enough jobs to give people. Hell, as it is now, there are highly qualified people who are looking for work. What if you double the population of people looking for white collar or high pay jobs? Because there could never be high benefit/pay for every American, there has to be some way to help those that aren't there. The line, pretty clearly to me, is helping those who want to better themselves better their position in life versus giving someone a free ride so they are never motivated to better themselves. For that, I don't have a good answer.
You're the one who brought up religion. And yes it will have emotional effects on people. Sort of like fear mongering about the terrorists. And yes some will suffer. Life is not fair. It's sad, but it is the truth. Someone has to pay for a service/good, they can't just steal it. It doesn't work that way.
Thanks to all for trying, but, as is obvious, Red will never cede a point unless it's one agreeing with him.
I think the point is that in a democratic capitalistic society, there will always be "haves" and "have nots", however, every person has an opportunity to be a "have", so instead of complaining about their lot in life, they can improve themselves if they truly want to and if they don't want to improve themselves, then they need to make due with what they have and what the "haves" agree to give them.
If you can make up an impossible scenario where everyone is a highly trained dude then I can make up one where there are limitless high paying jobs. The hypothetical does not make sense. This. I am more than happy to hel the poor and downtrodden, but don't force me to do it. Don't steal what I worked for to help someone else. The fruits of my labor is not anyone else's entitlement
