Actually, basic economics states that concepts like competition and profit work more efficiently than government monopoly. Here's a question - what's an example where the US Gov't stepped in and nationalized an industry and had good results?
So you agree that health care should be a privately run system because of the efficiency of the market and that instead of nationalizing health care that would make the situation even worse we should work to lower costs (through the removal of government intervention and regulation) and also help anyone that wants health care to have enough money to afford it at this lower cost?
Not at all. The decision should be made by doctors, not CEO's.
I agree - the doctor/patient relationship wasn't compromised until the government got involved. The government already has too much say in the doctor/patient relationship, especially with the legislation that basically forces the insurance system to work the way it does, and it's even worse for those on Medicare and Medicaid. To improve upon your point, it should be a decision made by the doctor and the patient rather than an insurance bureaucrat, public or private - government legislation ftw there also.
What happens when parents are brainless in matters that don't deal with health care?
Oh you're right, forget the kids then, we shouldn't give anyone a chance. Let's also destroy public education and the rest of our social programs as well, because **** the indigent. In the new America you get kicked when you're down, over and over.
I personally don't see how giving everyone health care as my argument advocates is going to "**** to indigent" - I just support giving everyone better quality health care than what government can provide. Though our public education and social programs do need to be drastically reformed as well. Rather than moving towards more government control, we need less to help the poor are able to not only survive, but to have social mobility as well.
So you think that giving health care to children will somehow restrict you and others from obtaining private insurance? Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing how corporations are better than government anyway. The reason why there is current government intervention in health care and other services is because those corporations prefer it this way.
I've been arguing against nationalized health care as endorsed by LB, though the argument as it stands covers children as well - I want them to have better health care than the government can ever provide and that lower health care at a lower price than nationalization or the government intervention system we have now. If you're talking about SCHIIP, that program is even worse costs and worse quality health care than complete nationalization of health care. Furthermore, I've been advocating getting corporations and more importantly insurance bureaucrats out of the equation and restoring the patient/doctor relationship - something removed indirectly by government intervention. I want better quality health care for all people, something that is not possible through nationalization. You argue as if I want the status quo - I want radical reform in a way that will help all.
We're looking for the same thing then, but with opposites. Government reform, it won't happen in either of our lifetimes.
I think it will happen very soon - either with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards Care to one extreme, or Ron Paul will work towards closer to what I want. I'm just hoping that with the election of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards the notion of providing health care to the poor isn't discredited too much because I really don't see much other than disaster coming from nationalized health care, especially with the fiscal situation the United States is in right now. I guess I'm just worried that a Hillary, Obama, or Edwards presidency will do for domestic policy what Bush did for foreign policy. On the other hand, there wouldn't be any more potent force to revitalize the small government and individual rights movement within the Republican Party to throw the neo-con's out of power than 4 or 8 years of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Anyway, this is more of a ramble than anything else, but it's just how I see it.
How can you get rid of both corporataions and insurance bureaucrates on one hand, and of the government on the other? who's gonna run you're vision of a better and improved healt care?
It's not that you get rid of corporations and insurance bureaucrats as much as you remove them from the doctor/patient relationship - remove them from the decision making process. In the current insurance system the doctor is essentially an employee of the insurance company. The basic idea of the new system is to redefine what 'insurance' is and how it is carried out.
