Thinkin....
I have been listening at some length to those in private sector who argue over and over that government is a problem, big government a big problem and that the private sector is better equipped to address the needs of the 'customers'.
You know the screed. Government is wasteful, slow to react and uncaring. Normally, this is applied to the federal government, but it can be applied to state and (occassionally) local government. Consider the underlying principles, if you will, and I think you'll find the thought process is faulty.
First, let us consider what the underlying raison d'etre of the public sector and the private sector. The public sector is there to provide goods/services (justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, etc. etc.) to the public at large in the long term (for ourselves and our posterity). The private sector, in contrast, has a single objective - to make money. How a corporation makes that money, whether by goods or services, is a means to the end. Further, every corporation is legally required to make a maximum amount of money for their investors during each review period (normally a fiscal quarter).
Secondly, recall that Government of any kind is a non-profit organization. That is to say that the goal of the public sector is to spend only the funds given and if the public sector makes a profit, the extra funds are re-distributed into the organization (either via a 'rainy day' fund, paying off outstanding debts new/expanded projects or reduction in future FY budgets to offset the revenue). In comparison, the private sector is (by definition) a for-profit organization. According to the US Commerce dept., private sector profit (before interest, taxes and depreciation) since WW2 has swung from 26% to 36% with the last decade over 30%. Ergo, all other things being equal, a private sector firm must charge 30% more than the public sector for identical goods/services.
Third, there is the question of accountability. Individuals in a public sector organization are governed by strict transparency rules that demand that policies are clearly explained, decisions considered with feedback and avenues of redress clearly outlined. Policy makers can and are replaced due to a perceived lack of capability/willingness/ability to discharge their duties. Private sector organizations are not governed by such transparency requirements and often take great pains to make their policies and decisions as opaque as possible. Their leaders are not subject to recall by the customer, though the share holders can and will replace them due to a perceived lack of capability/willingness/ability to discharge their duties.
In light of these comparisons, I have issue seeing how medical insurance companies, for instance, can argue that they're even in the same GAME as the public option.
You know the screed. Government is wasteful, slow to react and uncaring. Normally, this is applied to the federal government, but it can be applied to state and (occassionally) local government. Consider the underlying principles, if you will, and I think you'll find the thought process is faulty.
First, let us consider what the underlying raison d'etre of the public sector and the private sector. The public sector is there to provide goods/services (justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, etc. etc.) to the public at large in the long term (for ourselves and our posterity). The private sector, in contrast, has a single objective - to make money. How a corporation makes that money, whether by goods or services, is a means to the end. Further, every corporation is legally required to make a maximum amount of money for their investors during each review period (normally a fiscal quarter).
Secondly, recall that Government of any kind is a non-profit organization. That is to say that the goal of the public sector is to spend only the funds given and if the public sector makes a profit, the extra funds are re-distributed into the organization (either via a 'rainy day' fund, paying off outstanding debts new/expanded projects or reduction in future FY budgets to offset the revenue). In comparison, the private sector is (by definition) a for-profit organization. According to the US Commerce dept., private sector profit (before interest, taxes and depreciation) since WW2 has swung from 26% to 36% with the last decade over 30%. Ergo, all other things being equal, a private sector firm must charge 30% more than the public sector for identical goods/services.
Third, there is the question of accountability. Individuals in a public sector organization are governed by strict transparency rules that demand that policies are clearly explained, decisions considered with feedback and avenues of redress clearly outlined. Policy makers can and are replaced due to a perceived lack of capability/willingness/ability to discharge their duties. Private sector organizations are not governed by such transparency requirements and often take great pains to make their policies and decisions as opaque as possible. Their leaders are not subject to recall by the customer, though the share holders can and will replace them due to a perceived lack of capability/willingness/ability to discharge their duties.
In light of these comparisons, I have issue seeing how medical insurance companies, for instance, can argue that they're even in the same GAME as the public option.