+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? (/showthread.php?tid=84403)
Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - Mac1337 - 09-15-2009
Imagine the possibilities. In order to keep food costs down grocery stores need competition. What better way than starting a Public Option Food Market chain? Direct from government farms to the consumer. Then we can have Public Option Motors where you buy GM cars without the dealer getting in the way. What do they add to the transaction? Public Option Home Goods will keep Macys in check. Last but not least, Public Option Housing. Now, that is going to be a winner.
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - the_poochies - 09-15-2009
Health care takes up a far larger chunk of a person's wages than food costs, and that gap has been growing wider and wider.
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - Doc - 09-15-2009
the_poochies wrote:
Health care takes up a far larger chunk of a person's wages than food costs, and that gap has been growing wider and wider.
That's a substantiated fact in my case, at least.
I can prove it just by looking at the itemized deductions from my paycheck. Add to it the portion that my employer contributes and it's quite a bit more than my food budget.
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - davester - 09-15-2009
Well that would make sense if there were a slew of food distributors who raked in billions in excessive profits by conspiring to starve people who ate too much, or people who had been seen eating too much a few years previously, or who forced the grocery stores to have an army of paperwork pushers who had to fill out claims anytime a customer wanted to buy a twinkie.
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - Mike Sellers - 09-15-2009
If grocery stores made greater profits by denying people food, your analogy would work.
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - OWC Jamie - 09-15-2009
Like cutting out name brands in favor of thier profit -making house brands ?
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - Mike Sellers - 09-15-2009
Those name brands make the house brands also. Kroger doesn't make their own canned hams.
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - OWC Jamie - 09-15-2009
So removing the choice to maximize profit is OK.
Wonderful.
Green paste for supper.
.
Conagra made it. WE can tell by the zipcode.
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - mattkime - 09-15-2009
>>So removing the choice to maximize profit is OK.
Who suggested that?
Anyway, the whole thread deserves a
Re: Why not "Public Option" everywhere? - Mac1337 - 09-15-2009
davester wrote:
Well that would make sense if there were a slew of food distributors who raked in billions in excessive profits by conspiring to starve people who ate too much, or people who had been seen eating too much a few years previously, or who forced the grocery stores to have an army of paperwork pushers who had to fill out claims anytime a customer wanted to buy a twinkie.
Who are you to say they make "excessive" profits? What is your expertise? Which insurance companies are conspiring and if they are where is law enforcement? Where are the state regulators? Where are the Democrats, the great protectors of the weak? Republicans are screaming to open up states for all to compete. Democrats have built walls to protect insurance companies.