Medicare ? No, that's bleeding money from mismanagement and rampant fraud. Judicial system ? Congressman Jefferson just now coming to trial 2+ years after the fact ? Not such a good example either.

__________________
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 think I was using that as the current argument used by and in certain circles.

Thank you sir.

Ahhh yes, but here's the thing about that though.

a.) Private insurers don't think they need need to be fixed.

2.) They have no plan on changing anything.

III.) They'll still be for profit so the individual's interest can never come first, by default.

Uhhh pardon me but FEMA still sucks. Gulf Coast resident here. They sucked during katrina and they sucked during ike. I'll bet you dollars to donughts they suck this season.

The military works IN SPITE of the government. WHY? its given money to work with and ONE person decides what to do with it (Commander in Chief)

Going to the moon has clusterfucked out so many times its not even funny. And we still haven't gotten much out of it.

It also doesn't require a MASSIVE bueracracy.

Heres an idea. Look at how they run the VA. No thanks

Hmmmmm...

No you weren't. Your post is pretty clear.

Your post shows that you believe that government needs to be "fixed". You made no reference to other "circles", nor did you quote anyone else. The words you wrote are yours, and yours alone. Be man enough to own up to that.

And, as you seem to be a big fan of government run healthcare, one can conclude that you want to put that service in the hands of, by your own admission, a broken entity.

That's pretty fucked up, but it really does show just how fucked up the left can be sometimes...

__________________



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...

Hmmmm...

Should I really take you seriously?

Only if you're not afraid of looking like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Considering that you continue to dodge the question, though, I don't think there's much of a chance of anyone believing you have a clue...

__________________



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...

I didnt know either so I looked it up, you are welcome.




a. I think it may be closer to the mar to say that they disagree about what is broken

2. see a

III. In any contract there are two parties, each of which have interests at stake. In this case the insurer would like to get paid every week same as anyone else, the insuree wants the terms of theor policy met. In a perfect world ths should be easy to accomodate. There are several third parties involved with their own interests at play. The vendors also want to be paid. And then the government (medicare/caid) wants servioces but also want to be able to decide to pay less and less at their chosing. Those vendors have to find ways to get paid while the govt cuts it's rates in addition to customers who just don't pay (and those who are attempting to defraud them). This is the conundrum. The govt basically forces them to game the govt system to maximize payouts. And if that doen't get it done then they resort to fraud. So... do these insurance people not deserve to get paid ? The vendors ? Its far more involved than just nasty insurance companies. I don't claim that they are free of sin, only that there is plenty to go around.

__________________
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

Any comments on the post earlier with a link describing the difference between "Government healthcare" and a Single Payer system?

I would offer the example of Social Security, introduced when seniors had the highest poverty rate of any group in the US with over 90% below the poverty line, seniors now have the lowest poverty rate in the US. Social Security also boasts the lowest administration costs of any pension/disability insurance plan in the world. And the experience of country's that have privatized their pension plans leaves them looking longingly at the US Social Security System. For example Britain found that when it privatized pensions that people were not sold the proper pension plans for their particular situation, but more often than not they were sold the pension scheme that provided the highest commission to the person selling the scheme. And they now have large numbers of Seniors who need to receive welfare benefits because their privatized pension product has left them destitute.

Or maybe the US Postal Service, providing us with the lowest priced first class postage rate in the world, at no cost to the taxpayers.

Or maybe US Medicare, which is the system that is usually compared to Canadian Medicare to show how the US Health Care system is superior to the Canadian system.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I think most people comprehend that all the medical people will not become government employees nor all clinical settings become govt institutions (of course we didnt think the govt would get into the car biz either but I digress).

Beyond that its sort of moot.

There will be a large burocracy set up and to be paid for which is only adds cost to the system.

If the govt is involved, we know that they will shape the process so single payer will render it all to be govt healthcare anyway.

The process will encourage business to abandon insurance which pushes it further to govt HC.

Different pathes but the destination is the same.

__________________
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 think that there is incentive to have some government run service when the market simply would not accommodate it for all customers or when there were barriers to a company being able to take advantage of economies of scale. Only in this situation is the government even an adequate competitor.

For instance, consider the USPS. What the USPS does is distribute mail equitably, as a means of communication for the country. What they don't do is charge more for customers in rural areas or simply opt not to provide service. A private competitor might simply opt not to provide service to some areas as they would have only negative effects on profits, in terms of infrastructure cost. Obviously, this would defeat the purpose of having a flat system that allowed any citizen to communicate with any other citizen. Another similar example would be government subsidizing of train transportation, or government ties with electricity/phone providers. Again, this insures that all citizens have access to these 'essentials' when the free market might result in providers telling some "tough luck".

The common threads here are (1) equal access for all citizens but also, and more importantly that (2) the system breaks for everyone if it does not cover all, which is never going to be addressed by rationally functioning corporation. That is, if I want to mail a letter to my friend in Podunk, Wyoming, and mail service doesn't go there, not only is he up a creek, but so am I, even in a profitable area.

Where it doesn't seem to make as much sense is with healthcare. Like above, it would provide "equal access" for all citizens, but unlike those situations, my friend in Podunk, Wyoming has no bearing on my situation. I can purchase healthcare without others doing likewise (the only exception being innoculations against virulent infections). The reason that second consideration is of paramount importance is that you're removing the primary reason for the government to run it, which is that lack of demand for the service at a reasonable market price causes the enterprise to operate at a loss. There is plenty of demand for healthcare.

If the government stopped operating the USPS or subsidizing Amtrak, it's possible that those services would simply go away. It is not possible that, without government intervention, healthcare would go away. So, why have the government outlaw all competition and set up a monopoly? To what benefit?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I was wondering that, too, since I'm the one who posted the link describing the difference.

__________________

Had you actually read the different links in my post, you'd know that none of what you say is true.

__________________

If I believed everything I read, I would be dead.

__________________
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 think it depends on your philosophy regarding Government.

We already have a federal, uniformed public health service. There is no reason they could not operate at least one research hospital in all state capitals and any major cities as appropriate. It would be another method of lowering the cost of health care for people in poverty; since that cost would be spread among the largest consumer base possible.

Eliminating official poverty via the mechanism of unemployment compensation, at-will, would allow for more market based metrics by increasing the circulation and monetary base to the individual consumer of statism. Government health care mandates could have the effect of engendering more respect for the law if no market participant can claim to be in official poverty, in our money-based, mixed market, political economy.

I think a combination of both would provide better services at lower cost to the individual consumer of statism.