celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The public plan will not be efficient--government is inherently inefficient in all its aspects. The public plan, being an extension of government bureaucracy, will act to maximize costs (thereby maximizing budget and bureaucracy) rather than minimize costs. The public plan, being government sponsored, does not even need to turn a profit (as with other government enterprises, such as Amtrak, Congress will simply cut a check each year for the losses).If it bankrupts the insurance industry, then that means that people are preferring the public plan. Aside from being an inherently good thing that the public plan is efficient enough to woo customers, it means that there would need to be more employees working on the public plan. So what makes you think that this will cost more jobs than it creates?
Economic efficiency do not obtain where profit maximization and cost minimization are not the driving forces.
Nor does the public plan need efficiency. The proposed legislation tilts the playing field in favor of the public plan by limiting and burdening the activities of private insurance.