Going to the moon was a huge success.

Or how about the best and most sophisticated military on the planet?

Or how about FEMA when it was run by anyone but Bush?

Modern right-wingers insist that the gov't can do no good, and then for some odd reason they want to get elected in order to prove that point.

When people think of gov't as being "us" instead of gov't as being "them", then there is no major problem "we" can't fix, since "it" can't do anything as grand as what "we" can do.

It depends on how you view gov't. In modern times, the right sees it in a purely sentimental way, the way a child sees their daddy. And it's always an argument that daddy can't deliver everything. But that's not a realistic view of what gov't can really be, since it only can make progress as we the people do, and depending on how we put pressure on elected representatives to get that progress done.

As long as healthcare is up for sale in America, the longer the system will be far too expensive while limiting coverage.

In private hands, healthcare costs helped to bankrupt companies like GM, who reportedly were spending upwards of $1,500 on healthcare per employee per every automobile built. That's completely outrageous and unsustainable, but it's going to continue to work like that as long as powerful corporate interests and insurance companies have control of the country's healthcare payment system.

It's the payment delivery system that is broken, and going with a single-payer payment system is the most affordable way to go, as proven by all the other developed nations (and not so developed) that have it.

The gov't can do great things as long as people approach it from the view that we are the gov't, not "they".

And for much of the first half of the 20th century, America had a can-do attitude about themselves as the gov't, whereas today grown adults make a childish argument about how daddy can't possibly do everything for us.

What's the line? Ask not what your country can do for you....

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

Source please?

You're claiming that GM spent $1,500 per employee per vehicle?

According to this article, there are ~62,000 GM employees.

In may, GM delivered 191,875 cars (GM | General Motors: Investors: Sales Deliveries and Production Schedules: Current Release)

So, your contention works out to:

$1,500 x 62,000 x 191,857 = 17,842,701,000,000

In one month, or around 214,112,412,000,000 per year.

Somehow, I doubt very seriously that GM spends 214 trillion dollars on healthcare yearly.

Care to try again?

Matt

Colorado Media Matters - KOA's Caldara repeated $75 per hour autoworker falsehood despite GM's statements to the contrary

$1,500: the cost-gap between GM and other companies per auto, primarily because of lifetime benefits, much of it healthcare.

It's not a new figure.

Google 1,500 and GM and you'll get pages and pages of results and links that tell us how GM failed.

The bottom line is that single-payer would offer massive relief to businesses large and small.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

Two come to mind immediately:

1. Fire protection services. I can call 9-1-1, tell them my house is burning down and I'll have ten fire trucks and 30 firemen at my house in 10 min putting it out. Of course I've never ever met anyone who needed firemen but I pay for it just the same (as do all the small government conservatives in our countries).

2. Police protection services. I can call 9-1-1 and have 20 police officers at my home in 10 min if I happen to see a robber. I have use police services on occasion.

Steve, why have you not made a stink about paying for other people's recklessness when they burn their homes down with faulty wiring or cigarettes in the garbage? Why have you not tried to opt out of fire protection or police protection? I think we both know the answer is that it would be ridiculous to ask to opt out of essential services. Health care is one of those services. In fact its more important than either of the two services I just mentioned because more people's lives depend on it. You've been conditioned to think that it should be run as a business with profit but this is wrong. Its as wrong as two fire stations fighting over who gets to put out a burning house like in the late 1800s.

__________________
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Vice President Dick Cheney (2002)

And if you need a knee replacement, you'll get a chance of getting one in around 39 weeks.

An urgent heart bypass? 8 days.

Since you're all excited about response times and all.

Matt

Looks just you just proved Steve's point.

__________________

Excellent points maestros.

The bottom line is that the government can work wonders when they put their minds to it.

Yea, but I could also say a fixed private insurer would be able to run a better healthcare plan as well.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

I'm opposed to government run health care. I do advocate for a national single-payer system.

Quite a difference.

FAQ linked above courtesy of Physicians for a National Health Program

__________________

Down here a lot of those firemen are volunteers as are the ambukllance and rescue. Cops not so much so.

But those are local agencies with a connection to their communities. We are talking about federal in this thread, about all they do well is the military and that is not an efficient operation financially.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I know there are delays and its a valid concern for sure. I guess I have confidence the system could be worked out.

If they cannot be worked out I can't imagine a worse situation than what the status quo is in the US right now.

Hehe on a side note I won't advocate government subsidized college education for you just yet (this is coming though).

__________________
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Vice President Dick Cheney (2002)

Interesting point. The military is a decent example I guess. There is also medicare, the federal judicial system, etc.

__________________
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Vice President Dick Cheney (2002)

You spelled "Government has run nothing so effectively that indicates they might run healthcare effectively" incorrectly.

Notice that nobody's really answered the question, primarily because they can't. There are no examples to give. So, instead of answering honestly and saying "Nothing", idiot libs come across with bullshit like "Well, it can't be fucked up any more". Whether that's true or not is irrelevant; it doesn't answer the question.

Libs are too afraid to answer the question, so they post non-pertinent bullshit.

Just like you did...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

So those three things suggest that the government is prepared to run healthcare for every American?

How so?

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Unfortunately, the federal government runs neither of those, so you've failed to make any point...

Could you point me to where the federal administration of either of those has been a topic for discussion?

Again, these aren't federally run services. The question I posed was specific to the federal government. You've failed to address that aspect...

Danny, I really do appreciate your trying to respond to the question. The fact of the matter, though, is that you continue to compare services that are operated at a local level with a service which would be operated on a federal level.

If you'd like to address something on the federal level which suggests they're prepared to run healthcare, I'd love to see it, because I sure the fuck haven't seen one yet...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...