I may have to read the speech again, but I took this comparison to mean that the existence of a "public option" would not mean the end of "private options," i.e. the US has both public and private universities and neither seem to be going anywhere.

It's possible I could have misunderstood his statement. Let me know what you find out if you don't mind.

It's possible I could have misunderstood his statement. Let me know what you find out if you don't mind.

 

Well, this is the quote in question:

 

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Well, this is the quote in question:

See, to me it sounds like he's out of touch there.

See, to me it sounds like he's out of touch there.

 

 

I don't understand....out of touch with....?????

I don't understand....out of touch with....?????

Look at the chart...

See, to me it sounds like he's out of touch there.

 

Just do what his speach says and it will all be better. He is the smartest guy in the room. Of course, the Enron guys were the smartest guys in the room also. And they even had really run what used to be a real business at one time. This president has no business or finance management experience - but he must have all of this right.

Here is how you keep things affordable in a government system:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

And that is why we had the Revolution . Nothing but murder in that example .

Let's look at Harvard for example. The government could offer a 4 year degree for free and Harvard probably wouldn't see any decline in enrollment as a direct result of it. People grow up dreaming about going to Harvard, or Duke, or Vanderbilt, or Yale. For the most part private schools do not compete with public schools. They are not in the business to make money, they are all in the business to educate. Privately run insurance companies are in the business to make money.

 

Have you seen the size of the endowments of the schools you mention, and how relatively little they pay out in scholarships (5 percent is their obligated amount)? Places like Harvard could let everyone of their students go for free and still make a killing.

It was a good comparison if you take everything out of the whole quote except "Private Public" lol.

Have you seen the size of the endowments of the schools you mention, and how relatively little they pay out in scholarships (5 percent is their obligated amount)? Places like Harvard could let everyone of their students go for free and still make a killing.

Maybe but is that why they open the doors every day? Do they actually look for ways to increase their bottom line? Is that their main goal? If so I stand corrected.

Maybe but is that why they open the doors every day? Do they actually look for ways to increase their bottom line? Is that their main goal? If so I stand corrected.

 

It's certainly not an afterthought the way you suggest. It may not be No. 1 priority, but it's not far down the list. If it was a low priority, I doubt schools' chief investment advisers would be pulling down paychecks bigger than the schools' presidents.