Quote:
Originally Posted by Gort
The problem Goober, I will get to your issue Diuretic in just aminute, the government is in fact already spending that much on programs that do not actually provide health coverage except for some retirees and some people on welfare, most of that is still comming from the states. And even with that limited number of people covered it is still spending more than anyone else on health care. You expect me to believe that if they were to offer univesal coverage to all and levy a tax to pay for it that somehow the numbers would magically drop back into line? I have yet to see a government run program, almost any program, run efficiently and this will be the single biggest program it would have so why should we think this would be any different.
|
Your argument is based on ideology "The government can't do anything efficiently".
Mine is based on empirical data, "40 governments do provide better health care at a substantially lower cost".
While government run solutions are not as efficient as a free market, there is very little about health care in the US that is based on the free market, almost every aspect of health care in the US is a government granted monopoly, which is currently extracting monopoly profits from the US health care consumer.
So the argument isn't over a government program vs a free market.
The Argument is over a government program vs a Monopoly.