View Single Post
Old 09-19-2007, 07:02 PM   #2509
scaeagles
I LIKE!
 
scaeagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,819
scaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of cool
(To EM: ) They probably aren't. One difference is that companies frequently (at least this is the case with both the school my wife teaches at and the very large corporation I work for) shop the market for better deals among the health insurance companies. I can also opt out if I choose.

I do not claim that this is a perfect system. I don't think there is a perfect system. Knowing the propensity for government to mess things up and have cost overruns in the hundreds of billions of dollars even on the comparitively small prescription drug program, I hesitate to want them to have an opportunity to control my health care costs.

(To ISM: )
How does one fund the expenses of the federal government? Not an easy task. I realize it is a necessary evil, but the spending is so horribly out of control on things that the federal government was never designed to handle or manage that I cannot help but think that the simple answer is that the feds should spend less. I'm sure you are familiar with baseline budgeting, which allows an increase of 5% on a budget item to be construed as a cut because there is a mandate from the Carter years that budget items go up 10% every year regardless of if the money is needed there. I wish I could have some form of mandate to increase my budget every year by 10%. Don't think it's going to happen. I have to be responsible and make tough choices with my spending, as does everyone....except the federal government.

Last edited by scaeagles : 09-19-2007 at 07:11 PM.
scaeagles is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote