FIRST CHOICE ~ SECOND ?

First.

INTERSTING" YOU DON'T THINK PRIVATE HEALTH CARE WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE & GIVE YOU THE CHOICE TO PICK THE DOCTER THAT YOU FEEL MOST COMFERTABLE WITH ?

Take a look at the Post Office, FEMA, or any other government agency and then ask yourself if you want someone like that in charge of your health care.

There is absolutely nothing that is done by the Government that cannot be done better and more efficiently by private enterprise.

A few examples. The Post Office could't make money on parcel post but UPS made a fortune out of it. The Post Office says they need to continually increase the cost of first class postage, but they continue to handle tons of junk mail as a few pennies a piece.

FEMA - Katrina, need I say more.

Legislation is enacted requiring a passport to travel to places where only proof of citizenship was required before. No additional staff is added to handle the increased influx of applications resulting in delays of up to 3 months to get a passport.

Health care shouldn't be restricted to only those that can afford it.

There are good and bad points to both systems, but I believe availability has to be one of the more major concerns.

nobody said anything about availability the question was government run or private.

CHRISH

OK" SO OPTIONAL VEIW'S

THAT SOUNDS FAIR...

I THINK IT COME'S DOWN TO AVAILABILITY" {KEY}

GARDENFORGE

Valid point, I apologise for overlooking that.

Surely privately run, but government funded health care is a kind of medium between the two systems?

If it is not government funded, then my point about people who can't afford healthcare remains valid.

If it is, then I am unsure I could trust a commercial entity to look after healthcare (I can barely trust my government too).

Ta,

~C

Yes, privatization creates more efficiency, but the open market will drive down the quality of care without significantly reducing the cost. After all, the private sector intends to earn money. Chrish's suggestion of a private system funded by the government may be the best resolution.

Either private or public, the question of mandatory or voluntary health care still looms.

Can someone please show me something the government has funded that they didn't end up running? Anything the government funds or runs can be described in two words and the first word is "Cluster".

Social Security is going broke because there will soon be more people being paid from the fund than there are paying into it. Medicare is a Fiasco that no one totally understands. The prescription drug program it total chaos. The food stamp program is a joke. Now you want this same government to set up a health care program and run it efficiently and economically. You may have health insurance under that sort of program but you will die of old age waiting in line to see the doctor THEY decided that you need to see.

Perhaps you might also enlighten me as to who will pay for this program. Oh here's how we will do it, we will simply raise taxes. Perhaps you could get my support for such a program if it were tied to a streamlining of the federal bureaucracy, a substantial reduction of federal employees and pay cuts for all politicians.

Right off the bat, I'm not claiming to know how this will be feasible, or even if it can be worked at all. If head officials can't even agree on what's best, then I certainly don't have the answers either. My question, though, is if you want to keep health insurance private, would you think it should be mandatory?

No I don't think health insurance should be mandatory. That smacks of Socialism on the highest order. I do think that it should be available to those who what it at an affordable rate. Mandatory Health Insurance is simply another form of tax. Why is it that Russia, long the bastion of Socialism, is struggling to embrace Capitalism and we who once were the leaders of Capitalism are rushing headlong toward Socialism.

Why does no one remember that our government once took over a brothel in Nevada, and because of their sound business practices, couldn't even manage to turn a profit with that endeavor.

Haha. I think gardenforge and yourself make a good point. The behemoth bureaucracy that has become our government (whoa alliteration) is probably not best suited for the task. Still...I don't think private entities will fare a whole lot better. And there's still the issue of universal access...how would we force private companies to grant insurance to anyone who prefers it?

I go along with every post gardenforge has made, and want to add the following to his thoughts.

In order to achieve health care for all, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are young healthy adults in their late teens and early twenties and don’t want the added burden of health insurance. Therefore, if we have health care for all the resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don’t need.

The main defect of health care for all, as evidenced by those countries that have it, is that it is difficult to attempt cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage for Americans. Indeed, without cost control, coverage for all Americans just offers a blank check to patients and providers, which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.

Therefore, in order to achieve cost control, the USA would have to ration health care and impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans. For the first time, the word “no” would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say “we won’t pay for it” or “you don’t need it” or “we can’t fit you in at our facility.” The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border. Additionally, how is this system going to be financed? You and I will pay higher taxes.

I'm not trying to speak for gardenforge, but my impression from his posts was that he was AGAINST compulsory healthcare.

I am against complusory healthcare. That is why I posted all the negatives about it.

Oh ok, I misinterpreted what you were saying. So ultimately you are against reforming the system in an attempt to provide access for all, or do you support the reform but think that mandatory coverage is simply the wrong way to go about it?

According to figures by both Republicans and Democratics, there are 47 to 50 million people who do not have insurance. As I pointed out, half of these people are young people who do not want health care. Therefore, we have about 23.5 to 25 million who do not have it. Let the health insurance that people on welfare have be available to those. Why disrupt everyone else's health care to take care of the minority. Once again, I go along with gardenforge --- keep the government out of it.

Solid reasoning. I concur.