Why do conservatives oppose competition?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 1:15 AM GMT
    The "public option" for health care coverage appears to be doomed, thanks to widespread conservative opposition. What I'd like to understand is why. All it would do is increase competition in the health insurance market by offering a public plan for the private insurers to compete with. Isn't that a good thing? I thought conservatives believed in the power of the market to provide consumers with the best possible choices?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 1:20 AM GMT
    The people who call themselves conservatives are loyal first to those who fund their political campaigns. You need look no further to find your answer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 1:46 AM GMT
    The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies bought off the conservatives a long time ago via campaign contributions.

    Hence, they have no interest in anything except maintaining the status quo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 2:06 AM GMT
    But what justification do they use? Why do their constituents believe it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 2:12 AM GMT
    MenschPress saidBut what justification do they use? Why do their constituents believe it?


    This question misses the point. The Palin/tea baggers don't give a crap about intellectual consistency. The conservatives who are smart enough to see the inconsistency fall into two groups: (1) rich whores who are happy to fan flames to preserve a system that enriches them or (2) intellectual conservatives who oppose national healthcare on principle (and they don't like Medicare or Medicaid either).

    The number of conservatives in group #2 is so small, and they have zero influence over the GOP. They may care about consistency, but no one cares about them.

    Reactionary stances on social issues, general bitching about government spending (or cuts to Medicare when the elderly are needed), and fear-mongering are what gets conservatives elected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 2:29 AM GMT
    MenschPress saidBut what justification do they use? Why do their constituents believe it?


    Because their constituents are all fucktards who should have euthanized themselves ages ago to relieve the stress on an already overburdened system. It would be the Patriotic thing to do.icon_biggrin.gif
  • B71115

    Posts: 482

    Feb 24, 2010 3:29 AM GMT
    As rational as Guerilla Sodomite's argument may seem to some, here is a real answer if you want one.
    It will not increase competition, not when: a) your new competition can undercut you long enough to drive you out of business to an even greater degree than Walmart can in its industry, and b) your new competition can print money. Literally. And has proven to have no interest in worrying about debt.

    I believe it isn't about competition; it's about control. You may believe differently.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Feb 24, 2010 3:57 AM GMT
    The public option really isn't optional though, is it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 4:10 AM GMT
    Timberoo saidThe public option really isn't optional though, is it?


    You would also think they would understand that the freedom of privatized plans would by their very nature keep the big insurance companies in business. They just wouldn't experience the same level of profits they have by raping the financially disadvantaged for years.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Feb 24, 2010 4:54 AM GMT
    B71115 saidAs rational as Guerilla Sodomite's argument may seem to some, here is a real answer if you want one.
    It will not increase competition, not when: a) your new competition can undercut you long enough to drive you out of business to an even greater degree than Walmart can in its industry, and b) your new competition can print money. Literally. And has proven to have no interest in worrying about debt.

    I believe it isn't about competition; it's about control. You may believe differently.


    Yes, but the government is involved in many industries. Look at public education. I wouldn't argue public schools undercut private schools. Also, the reason why competition is ludicrous is that my health is not for someone else's profit. This isn't Walmart where buying a cheaper bookshelf is going to kill someone. If people are dying and it can be prevented, then let the government undercut any industry it wants. According to the preamble, isn't the government supposed to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare?" Sounds to me like a public option fits right in there given our current state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 5:16 AM GMT
    I don't think the health of our citizens should be a commodity for sale.

    But that's just me
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 6:11 AM GMT
    Evey ask Congress about their insurance plan? Know how many options they have? 100s. You know how many pre-existing conditions get denied to Congress? ZERO. Notta...none. Just the facts, Jack.

    Ever talk to military about the VA?

    Ever talk to the elderly about Medicare?

    Ever talk to a young single mother about Medicaid?

    The minute you pull "for profit" out of insurance, you lower costs by close to 30% (the 24% they get, plus their fudge).

    Know who has the cheapest electric power? It ain't for profit companies. No sir, ee, Sir. It's the publicly owned utilities.

    Ever see a 20 year old diabetic with no insurance worry about if he's going to have a problem and how he is going to buy his insulin?

    I'm sick of all the misinformation that is being put forth by The Right. It goes beyond disgusting, and, well towards criminal.

    They're a bunch of bought off fucking hypocrites that prey on ignorance. It's disgusting in the n'th degree.

    Ever see how much lower drug prices are in every country but the U.S.? It's not the countries with for profit pharmacy companies. No, Sir, EE, Sir. Nope.

    Regular countries believe that the sick and injured should be cared for, regardless of their age, income, social status.

    Ever wonder why we're so hateful, backward, ignorant, and self centered? We have the best system Big Insurance and Big Pharm can force down our throats, with boner pills on TV every 14 minutes.

    Why haven't we fixed this decades ago like other folks in The World?

    Why won't we see a public option? Corruption. Greed. Shitty people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 6:39 AM GMT
    B71115 saidAs rational as Guerilla Sodomite's argument may seem to some, here is a real answer if you want one.
    It will not increase competition, not when: a) your new competition can undercut you long enough to drive you out of business to an even greater degree than Walmart can in its industry, and b) your new competition can print money. Literally. And has proven to have no interest in worrying about debt.

    I believe it isn't about competition; it's about control. You may believe differently.


    Thank you, I did indeed want a real answer; and I appreciate you providing me with one, and thereby improving my understanding of the debate. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 6:53 AM GMT
    The argument that private industries cannot compete with public/government ones is bogus. There are a number of industries where both coexist. Parcel service, education, and health-care for example. It already exists to some degree. In health-care not enough.

    The real reason companies don't want competition, government or otherwise, is because it cuts into their profit margin and the ability to control a market. When many say free enterprise they don't mean it .. they mean the freedom to charge what they want without competition.

    This was how it was in telecom for decades. It wasn't until they were broken up until true innovation and value began.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 7:02 AM GMT
    PS. as far as why conservatives/republicans want real health-care reform to fail? They have already said so in public but have been putting up smokescreens since .. they said 1) they want Obama to fail 2) they want health-care to be Obama's Waterloo. The notion is that if they can tie Obama's hands enough .. people will go turn on Obama. That simple .. politics.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/23/inhofe-health-huge-gain/
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 7:35 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidThe people who call themselves conservatives are loyal first to those who fund their political campaigns. You need look no further to find your answer.


    Yet you are loyal to yourself and your lifestyle, and having the government pay your medical bills will allowed yo to have more cash to live the republican lifestyleicon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 8:00 AM GMT
    TheIStrat saidI don't think the health of our citizens should be a commodity for sale.

    But that's just me


    I completely agree... healthcare and education (primary and secondary) should be free for everyone regardless of their income or social standing... All men may be "created" equal, but once you're through that birth canal there's a clear distinction between those with power and those without.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 8:49 AM GMT
    Being British, I find it absolutely astounding that the "land of the free" and whatnot does not have an NHS.

    We take it for granted that if we get sick, get run over, etc, we'll be taken straight to the nearest hospital, and given care automatically and immediately. The same goes for temporary residents (students, etc), as far as I'm aware.

    In any advanced society, the preservation of human life should take priority, regardless of someone's financial circumstances, always, surely?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 11:58 AM GMT
    Brit_Bloke said
    We take it for granted that if we get sick, get run over, etc, we'll be taken straight to the nearest hospital, and given care automatically and immediately.


    Haha... that doesn't happen here without proof of insurance first!
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 24, 2010 12:48 PM GMT
    MenschPress saidThe "public option" for health care coverage appears to be doomed, thanks to widespread conservative opposition. What I'd like to understand is why. All it would do is increase competition in the health insurance market by offering a public plan for the private insurers to compete with. Isn't that a good thing? I thought conservatives believed in the power of the market to provide consumers with the best possible choices?



    Because it breaks their oligopoly on health insurance. It's all about the Benjamins.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 24, 2010 12:49 PM GMT
    MenschPress saidBut what justification do they use? Why do their constituents believe it?



    They don't justify it. They fear-monger it and many people are gullible enough to believe it.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 24, 2010 12:52 PM GMT
    B71115 saidAs rational as Guerilla Sodomite's argument may seem to some, here is a real answer if you want one.
    It will not increase competition, not when: a) your new competition can undercut you long enough to drive you out of business to an even greater degree than Walmart can in its industry, and b) your new competition can print money. Literally. And has proven to have no interest in worrying about debt.

    I believe it isn't about competition; it's about control. You may believe differently.




    Hmmmm...isn't that what happens to Mom-and-pop businesses already. And that's okay with you? The problem with the current healthcare system is that it is profit first and foremost at the expense of people's lives and livelihoods. You may believe differently, but that IS what it IS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 1:09 PM GMT
    Greed
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 1:28 PM GMT
    Did I miss something or was Obama´s solution always a bit fucktarded? He seems to have been scared off a single payer by the private insurers to the extent that it wasn´t even discussed and then offered a halfway house which didn´t really satisfy anyone. His rhetoric was about competition, but did he allow proper inter state competition to break the effective monopolies that many companies have? (I have moved countries 4 times since all this started: I can´t keep track). Having shied away from a single payer system (which could have been the best option) he then also seems to have shied away from a free market.... Double fail? Then he wasted months trying to get republican support for something that even a casual observer could see they would never support. Triple fail?


    Oh and conservatives believe in keeping things how they have always been: hence the word "conserve". Any sort of progress and improvement is by definition rejected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2010 1:31 PM GMT
    B71115 saidAs rational as Guerilla Sodomite's argument may seem to some, here is a real answer if you want one.
    It will not increase competition, not when: a) your new competition can undercut you long enough to drive you out of business to an even greater degree than Walmart can in its industry, and b) your new competition can print money. Literally. And has proven to have no interest in worrying about debt.

    I believe it isn't about competition; it's about control. You may believe differently.


    This is possibly a fair point, but presumes that the public option will
    cover more services than it will. Couldn't private options survive by offering greater coverage than the public option, perhaps at a higher price? Those who want and are willing to pay for greater access and flexibility will turn to private insurance.

    Moreover, I think you are on to something in that it is clear that private insurers would have to radically change their business model in order to survive. Less money would be spent on hiring people to deny the claims
    of sick people, or paying huge bonuses, or hiring lobbyists to kill healthcare reform. I can't see how anyone thinks the current insurance system is an example of efficiency or healthy competition anyway.