Quite true.

While their are many successful business ventures, the list of big business failures is long deep and wide.

Re gov run things.

The US postal service delivers letters across the US for a pittance. No business could do that.

__________________
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?

Because they stopped running the businesses they claimed to be running and became part of quarterly paying investment schemes.

I say it is more likely that they became piggy banks for greedy , stupid and incompetent CEO's.

So long as you're giving them money and/or fitting nicely into their cookie-cutter bureacracy, there's no fighting. But then the same could be said about the 'excessive insurance' paradigm we already have.

> Its available to all
... But used by comparatively few.
> its seeks to treat all fairly
... But often fails to do so because it is bound by very specific rules.
> Its generally held to be a success
... Because it does fairly well at a task that has no reasonable private-enterprise alternative.
> Its a service that all taxpayers benefit from
... Especially those who are politically connected or have the funds to 'grease the wheels'.
> while all citizens, taxpayers or not also benefit from
... Or sometimes suffer from
> Its extremely complex, requiring the expertise of many many people to make it function
... But provides monetary incentives for excellence, and is reasonably expected to do so in the future
> All these things would also apply to the Health service also
... As would the tactic of delaying action and/or final disposition until the complainant/patient dies, making the point moot.
> Fair enough?
I think so.

And insurance, whether private, government single payer, and government single provider (depending on how far one wants to look into the future) are the cornerstones of UHC.

And many recognize the shortfalls of over-application of such an approach.

Tiny minority or not, he is a role model. If people see somebody who refuses to work and see that the result is living under a bridge in all weather and begging for scraps to eat, they realize that is probably not the life they want. If they see that same person living in a government house, eating free cheese and watching cable TV, raising a litter of welfare kids, and making frequent and free trips to the doctor to break up the monotony, such a life doesn't seem so bad, and thus will not remain a tiny minority.

These are not mutually exclusive observations. But if a CEO kills a company, the CEO is out of a job and the company is gone. If a government program is an obvious failure, the elected officials responsible still enjoy having the election system stacked in their favor, and the program is usually given more money to address the problem that it still hasn't solved. A bad health insurance company can be driven out of business; a bad health program is forever.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

As is healthcare, most of the population most of the time simply carry on with their lives rather than live every other day at the doctors.

Which is not an argument against its free universal application.


In the universal application, same for healthcare. Paying for those who cannot pay will always be a public solution.


Perhaps, granted even, but that's not an argument against its universal application. Health or justice.

They suffer from the universal application of justice?

All still the case in a UHC system.

Already happens in all kinds of health services. Again its not an argument against its free universal application.

Good, at least you had the balls and brains to give it a go. Unlike Steve.



Leaving some out the loop or destitute is about the least American thing I can think of. You guys are known for your patriotism, time to show some more commitment to each other than endless flag waving.



You already provide a minimum of welfare for the indolent, giving them healthcare provides them the chance to improve themselves and the condition of their offspring.
Without it theyll never get out from under the bridge, thus you effectively keep the unhealthy poor.

Moreover the debate is not only about the indolent, but simply the under employed and the under insured.




Bad health insurance companies merely change management through buy outs .

__________________
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?

Yep. And no version UHC (public-option, single-payer, unfunded mandates) that's been considered will address the underlying problem which is cost inflation. All the approaches they're working on keep the consumer disconnected from the costs of their health care. They seek to indulge the currently popular desire for health care consumers to be treated innocent children who shouldn't have to be responsible for their own upkeep.

The United States has the best healthcare system in the world. Just ask the Candians who come here everyday and pay for healthcare that they could get for free in Canada. Now what does that tell you about gov run healthcare when people would rather pay for somthing they can get for free.
It's not perfect of course but it's the best and it's not broken by any means.
I say leave it the fuck alone

uhm what?

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Disagree with my words?

Look at your own link;

__________________
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, what happens if we vote in someone you hate...now they control your healthcare.

Ooops!

Can you elaborate on your point of view? The US or the UN (with US sanction) could simply recognize another state in historic Palestine. It could be done cost effectively with the moral and ethical authority of that form of public act among the several States of our integrated and global political-economy.

One of the reasons I voted democrat this election cycle is because of the perceived inertia of the Democrat's party platform.

I find it more astonishing, that the party of capitalism for the sake of Capitalism could not implement more market friendly financial tools for the health care sector. We still don't have an unfettered financial tool for the health care market, even with a health care "crisis". If the Republicans could not accomplish such a simple task in eight years, what makes anyone think the Democrats can change course on their party platform, without a more well informed electorate?

Whats a market friendly financial tool for healthcare?

__________________
"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

deregulation

One thing that would reduce healthcare costs would be if hospitals were able to refuse treatment. If someone OD'd on illegal drugs, kick em to the curb. If someone has cancer because they smoked, kick em to the curb. If someone hurt themselves in a car accident because they were drunk, kick em to the curb. We have now saved billions.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw