SF argues that private can't compete with Government because government is allowed to operate at a loss and rob another program or the tax payers or run up a huge deficit to off set it. So Private can't compete with government. FACT. Government is less efficient. Even though their prices are lower to the consumer and the direct costs to the gov't are probably going to be lower as well, the costs to the government could end up being higher as SG&A is always higher in gov't programs. Government can't control these costs and be as efficient as private companies. FACT. You are being intentionally obtuse. FACT.
You can't even see that your own pretzel logic defeats you :insane: FACT: Private industry can't compete effectively with government. FACT: Government can't compete effectively with private industry.
that is true. government isnt really competing because they are funded by taxes. so they cant lose. they can be miserable and never go out of business. but in terms of performance, they cant compete, because their services always suck, because they dont have to bother, because they cant go out of business. its called nuance, dude. its part of being good at reading.
You're cracking me up this morning. How about actually read what I wrote? Let me try it a different way. Price - Total Cost = Profit Do you agree with that? Direct Labor + Direct Cost + SGA = Total Cost Do you agree with that? Let's throw Direct Labor out as it is irrelevant in this case and lump it all in direct cost....so, Direct Cost + SGA = Total Cost Okay, now read this part slowly. If Profit goes into the negative because it is totally irrelevant, then price can be lower, and cost higher. Private Company Let's say price is 10, direct cost is 6 and SGA is 2. That makes 6+2 = 8 = Total Cost and 10-8 = 2 = Profit Government Let's say direct cost is the same, 6, and SGA will be greater because it always is in gov't. Call it 4. That makes 6+4= 10 = Total Cost but, government needs to make it affordable so they set price at 8 8-10 = -2 = Total Profit. Very simple really. Oh but wait, this plan is going to lower costs and be deficit neutral. I guess Obama's a magician.
Red, you're usually rock solid, but you're the one twisting things right now. It should read: FACT: Private industry can't compete effectively with government. FACT: Government will run at a loss. This is not the same thing as the government can't compete. As martin said, they don't have to compete, because they don't have to make a profit. This is the gist of SabanFan's argument. I'm sure you can make lots of good arguments, but the above is not one of them.
No, you are twisting my point. Sure they have to compete . . . for the business. Look, if they don't have to make a profit, that is an advantage to government. BUT . . . if government can't operate as effectively as industry, that's an advantage to industry. It's a wash. You assume most business will go to the cheapest plan. I assume most business will go the most effective plan.
You are using two different definitions of the word compete. SabanFan never said that Government couldn't compete for business. You put those words in his mouth. He only stated that they couldn't do it as efficiently as private insurers do. That's not the same as saying they can't compete for business.
