"jps" wrote in message
...
?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?

Geez, I'll never understand. Don't you "libertarians" always assume
that private enterprise can deliver products at a far higher level of
efficiency than government ever could?

If the agency that offers the public insurance option isn't allowed to
operate at a loss, then all we're talking about is the cost of
overhead and profit.

Seems like your very much more efficient private enterprise could kick
government's ass even having to be profitable, right?

Mouth. Two. Sides?\

Are you drunk. Your statement makes little sense as written. Where is the
government agency not allowed to operate at a loss. How much subsidy from
the taxpayers will be required to not operate at a loss?

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:03:21 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?

Geez, I'll never understand. Don't you "libertarians" always assume
that private enterprise can deliver products at a far higher level of
efficiency than government ever could?

If the agency that offers the public insurance option isn't allowed to
operate at a loss, then all we're talking about is the cost of
overhead and profit.

Seems like your very much more efficient private enterprise could kick
government's ass even having to be profitable, right?

Mouth. Two. Sides?\

Are you drunk. Your statement makes little sense as written. Where is the
government agency not allowed to operate at a loss. How much subsidy from
the taxpayers will be required to not operate at a loss?

Tell me, since you think you know.