So, you'd prefer to speak from a position of ignorance? Got it.

__________________

For examples of federal success, the moonshot, the judicial system, the military, the wide scale interstate public service planning that means the US is a well joined up country despite comprising of 50 states are but a few examples of sensible federal government - not to mention that fact that your federal gov sensibly seeks to stay out of local affairs.

Oh yes, and the civil rights interventions in the 1960s.

Often these examples involved farming out the operation to the localities where it going to happen, i.e. the moonshot wasnt run in washington. As such any future US universal HC would not be run solely in washington but would be farmed out locally as it is in every other modern country in the world.


Anyway Steve.

This is silly. You know very well that supporters of universal health care have no dog in any debate between healthcare being state, city, county run or run from Washington organisations.

They simply argue for universal coverage. If you were to ask them if it could be locally run universal coverage, like other essential services, you know very well that they'd all say yes.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Sorry, but you, like others, have missed the obvious point of the question.

I didn't ask "What federal programs have been successful?". I asked "What past program has been so phenomenally well-run by the government that you believe that the government is equipped and qualified to run healthcare?".

Ideally, an answer would include something remotely resembling what would be dealt with in a federally run healthcare system. Things like the moonshot and the judicial system? Sorry, I don't see it.

What is it about those that convinces you that the government is ready to run healthcare?

That's right. As long as they get it for free, they don't give a fuck who's payng for it...

__________________



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...

But your entire premise is false. No one is advocating for "government run" health care.

What's on the table are two options (one of which the Insurance Industry is all over). Single-payer (not government run) or the public option (again, not government run). Big Insurance is all over the "public option" because it's more profitable for them ... they can unload the sick onto the public plan and rake in profits off of premiums from healthy individuals, even though those individuals would be paying for the public plan via taxes. "Public option" is just another subsidy to Big Insurance to rape and kill us further.

__________________

I prefer to speak the truth as opposed to falling for the lies.

Kind of like "change we can believe in".

__________________
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

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.

emphasis added

So, now you're all about citing platitudes, except claiming to be against them. Got it.

__________________

I think the government does an excellent job of running the postal service and Social Security and Medicare. I'm tired of fighting with insurance companies for care. Single payer is the way to go.

SS and Med? Both programs are scheduled to go bankrupt soon and bankrupt the country with them. Heck, this whole healtcare debate is based around REFORMING medicare. Not too mention the goal is to provide health insurance for everyone, which you just said youre tired of fighting. Do you think that you wont be fighting with the govt for care? What interaction with the federal govt have you ever had that wasnt a fight.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Hmmm. It seems youre trying to compare things that are in detail quite different. But anyway, the things ive mentioned are all phenomenaly complex achievements across a massive nation that were done to world acclaim. Im not sure what your def on phenomenally actually is, but the government acheivements in such are close.

The judicial system is a great example. In it order is brought across 50 states, and a reasonable amount of justice is brought to the people. All directed from the federal government who has ultimate say in these matters. Such convinces me that the US gov can institute UHC in the US.




Theyre not getting it for free. As taxpayers and citizens also, they also will pay the price.

You started this thread, so I assume you desire a reasonable debate o the subject.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

So as long as something is complex and achieves world acclaim, that’s enough to satisfy you?

What is it about the judicial system that translates into the healthcare field so well that you believe the government can handle it?

Hmmm… Taxes?

Are you suggesting that payroll taxes cover the cost? I might not have a problem with that, as people who are too lazy to get a fuckin’ job would be left to fend for themselves, which I think is the right thing to do.

Oh, wait. That’s right. You want hardworking Americans to pay for the healthcare of the lazy.

Yeah.

Fuck that…

You have a keen eye for the obvious…

__________________



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...

That's a pretty good indicator by any standard.


Its available to all, its seeks to treat all fairly. Its generally held to be a success.

Its a service that all taxpayers benefit from while all citizens, taxpayers or not also benefit from.

Its extremely complex, requiring the expertise of many many people to make it function. All these things would also apply to the Health service also.

Fair enough?



Well UHC would indeed be universal, so of course the poor would be able to access treatment reasonably close to that of the better off, lazy or not. With all the wider benefits that would entail.



Thank you.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Not to pick at nits, but by that metric, eugenics is a good thing. So was Enron.

__________________
"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

And that's where I get off the universal coverage train.

People who work and contribute?

Fine.

People who try their hardest to secure employment, but can't?

Fine.

The able-bodied guy who lives down the street from me who has little interest in ever getting a job?

No, fuck him, and fuck everyone like him.

More than anything else, it's those people, and those in similar situations, who are the ones who make it impossible for me to accept universal coverage as a good idea. Take them out of the mix, and I would actually have very few problems with the idea...

__________________



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'm mostly disappointed that Obama is equivocating on the "individual mandate" provision. He said he was against that in the campaign. Now, working diligently for their financiers, congress is telling us we'll be forced to buy insurance. And Obama has indicated he won't veto based on that aspect.

That's the surest way to turn me virulently against the plan. Insurance is the problem, not the solution.