Having read various threads on healthcare and reading the opinions on both sides, a question comes to mind. This question is directed at those who believe that "the answer" lies in government run healthcare:

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?

This isn't the place to "make your case" for government run healthcare. Those opinions are well known and and those arguments have been made in other threads.

My opinion is that, with regards to government run health care, it'll be more fucked up than a soup sandwich.

I'm just wondering if there are other programs that the government has run that would be indicative of the government's ability/readiness to run something like healthcare...

__________________



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...

One good answer is...its pretty good and fucked up as it is now.

I don't see what's so good about the private sector running it.

It makes sense to try something else.

Sensibly speaking though, there's probably a way where they BOTH can be available...and let the CONSUMER choose.

Those who want the greatness of the private sector...let them have it, and the others will choose government.

What's so wrong with that?

It's been a minute since I've heard that line, lol.

Nothing that I can think of and that's always the point I bring up.

So instead of trying to fix something that needs some reform you choose to take a route that is proven to be the worst option possible? That's sound logic...

Nowhere in that response is an answer to the question.

If the question is too vexing for you, it's okay to simply not reply. But to reply in the manner you have, to such a simple fucking question, is an:

__________________



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...

Isn't that what you and your ilk do about the government? With this constant chant of "government is bad, government is no good!"

Those of us on the left believe, as you just stated, in trying to fix it...government.

A fixed government would be able to run a much better healtchare plan.

No?

Perhaps you're just too DENSE to deduce the clear answer that I gave you.

As you were.

Well get the government fixed first. Then we'll talk about healthcare.

Its like doing chores before being able to go out on friday nights in highschool

Ma tells you to clean your room before you can go out. Do you just say "yeah ok" and leave? NO you clean the room first.

Go clean your room

cute.

I thought so.


Now go clean up the government like you promised before i let you out at the free healthcare. Go on scoot! Those congresscritters aren't gonna clean up themselves!

Everything thats wrong with healthcae can be tied directly back to government.

__________________
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

Does this mean you recognize that government in it's current, unfixed state is not able to run a much better healthcare plan?

Matt

All things being equal, the private sector will always run things more efficiently than the government because the private sector does not have a monopoly. For instance, consider going to the DMV. It completely sucks, the employees are usually rude or brusque, there is a byzantine system of bureaucracy, and you don't have any fucking choice, so just smile and take it.

Now, imagine if I set up a competitor DMV where I paid employees a little more to give you service with a smile that was efficient. If the original DMV wanted to stay in business it would have to shape up its woeful act. But, I'm not allowed to setup a competitor DMV. So, you get what we've got, which is a place populated by inexplicably surly employees (considering they get about 75 paid holidays a year) who move at the speed of molasses. What motivation does anyone have to make that place better, when the government forces you to use it?

There are exceptions to this rule. For instance, when the government subsidizes things that society depends on but are not necessarily profitable to individual outfits. Or, there are times when competition isn't possible (utilities in an area for instance). But I think to make your point, you'd need to specifically outline why the government would do better at running healthcare than private individuals (and I don't see anything like it - I'm imagining some "doctor's union" driving prices up further while simultaneously lowering the quality of care).

So, it's not that there's anything necessarily "good" about the private sector running it. The consideration here is how things get worse when the party running it has a legally compelling monopoly.

__________________
"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'm not the one who's arguing that government is bad.

The guy I supported won.

I trust that guy.

I trust that he'll do what needs to be done.

You said government needs to be "fixed", did you not?

Matt