President Obama Healthcare Speech

[TheGame]

Prof I think you're a bit confused about my arguement.

If the public option is created, it cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents.

And at the same time, if the limitation for companies to insure people across state lines is dropped, it also cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents, but its argueably as hard or harder to change then a government run insurance option.

I disagree with your logic that such a major change to such a major industry can be reversed. Which is why I brought of NAFTA as an example. It dropped a limitation on where industry can operate. It litterally cannot be reversed now because too much of industry has moved outside of the united states.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Prof I think you're a bit confused about my arguement.

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'reversible' is. If reversible is making future changes that counter the affect of the changes that are made now.. then they're both reversible in my book. If reversable is adding regulations back on or flipping some switch that magically takes us back to the time before the changes were made.. then no, neither of them are reversible.

And honestly, how many government entitlements has anyone seriously considered reversing? How many of them really failed to cover the group that it was meant to? I know you mentioned that you had given examples before, but I don't see them..

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I guess that depends on your definition of 'reversible' is. If reversible is making future changes that counter the affect of the changes that are made now.. then they're both reversible in my book. If reversable is adding regulations back on or flipping some switch that magically takes us back to the time before the changes were made.. then no, neither of them are reversible.

And honestly, how many government entitlements has anyone seriously considered reversing? How many of them really failed to cover the group that it was meant to? I know you mentioned that you had given examples before, but I don't see them..

I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about in your first paragraph. It makes no sense at all. By "reversible" I mean that it's easily "reversed" to the alternative, and my brain hurts that I feel I actually have to actually explain that.

As for reversing entitlements? As I mentioned earlier, social security just recently. But I'm sure you'll argue what "reversing" means in that sense as well, as if the act of arguing the definition of "reverse" enlightens this discussion at all.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about in your first paragraph. It makes no sense at all. By "reversible" I mean that it's easily "reversed" to the alternative, and my brain hurts that I feel I actually have to actually explain that.

I wouldn't call that "reversed".. Bad choice of wording on your part.

If you're saying it would be possible to drop the restriction on insurance across state lines first, then put in the public option later.. but not possible to do the public option first, and then deregulate the private insurance companies later.. Then I agree.. to an extent. I agree that it wouldn't be as practical but I don't think that'd it'd be impossible.

But neither change is really reversible.. You can just over ride one idea with another after a period of time.

As for reversing entitlements? As I mentioned earlier, social security. But I'm sure you'll argue what "reversing" means in that sense as well, as if the act of argue the definition of "reverse" enlightens this discussion at all. I hate semantic games...

Its not my fault that you aren't clear about the intent in the use of your words.

So really, are people putting towards a big effort to get rid of social security? I wasn't aware of that, last I checked both sides were trying to "protect" it. Its not perfect, but it covers who it is meant to.

I think government programs are reversible, but I think that for the most part they all work.. so there is no incentive to try and get rid of them. The most people will try to do is fix their flaws, but its good enough to where the concept of government run progams will never be dropped. IMO

[Professor S]

To reverse is to go in the opposite direction of where you were going.

Logic dictates that if you are moving towards a private solution, to reverse would be to go towards a public solution.

This is not hard, but by God you make it hard.



And with that I'm leaving this conversation before you give me brain cancer.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

To reverse is to go in the opposite direction of where you were going.

Logic dictates that if you are moving towards a private solution, to reverse would be to go towards a public solution.

This is not hard, but by God you make it hard.



And with that I'm leaving this conversation before you give me brain cancer.

I didn't need further clarification as you explained yourself before.. But nice way to bail out of talking about social security. And way not to give any examples of Government programs that there is any incentive to back out of.