Should the government provide doctors?

While it could be possible, it can't happen with the way things are presently set up. Our current health system is set up to be a money making machine. The government would have to completely disassemble the whole thing to do that.

Of course, with the way King Zero is going that shouldn't be a challenge...

 

Yep, if this plan goes through to it's intended end, traditional insurace companies will go broke. Then Uncle will be forced (wink, wink) to take over. Then the doctors will be employed and controlled by the imperial government of the United Socialist States.

 

The "go broke" thing is pure political/corporate propaganda.

The insurance companies stand to make a killing if everyone in the U.S. is forced to buy their insurance. Think about it.

Socialism isn't the best vehicle to drive quality. It drives it alright but in the wrong direction. This is what I don't understand, we have all these well dressed and educated politicians running our country but none of them seem to understand that it's competition that drives prices down and quality up. Monopolies and central planning have the opposite effect.

So either these politicians are economically ignorant (stupid) or they're working for the government of, by and for the monopolies and central planners.

I don't believe for one minute they're as stupid or inept as they'd like us to believe so they must be working to enrich the monopolies and central planners at our expense. Is there another plausible explanation?

I'm an old fashioned American. I don't think the government should be providing doctors or anything else for that matter. The proper role of our federal government is to defend our God given rights and provide for the national defense. Period.

 

Well then why not just have the government provide everything? That is the ultimate dream of socialists is it not?

Which government? The federal, state, county, city, or district?

Why not just let individuals and private agencies take care of what they can and should and keep the governments out of as much as possible?

 

If our "public servants" were doing their job of defending and protecting the constitution of the United States as they should be none of this socialist/fascist stuff would be possible.

What does that tell you? It tells me they aren't doing their job at all and should be forced into looking for another one more suitable to their talents namely lying, cheating and stealing.

 

I can see the advantages of an NHS-style system (which I used to favor), but the prospect of waiting lists makes the idea untenable. We are moving closer to a German-style system with universal coverage. I do wish we could ensure that all insurers were non-profits, that would help, IMO.

Ultimately, it is probably better to preserve some market systems to promote competition, and having private doctors with non-profit insurers makes the most sense to me.

 

It occurred to me that the single payer plan would, in effect, be an internationally acceptable subsidy to American manufacturing and businesses. This should please even Republicans.

 

It will as soon as and if ever they regain the majority.

 

Did you really expect the police to spend time looking for a tire and rim? Wouldn't it be difficult to prove if any they found belonged to to or to someone else?

 

That's one major advantage of the single payer system.

One idea I like from the GOP is separating healthcare from employment. I don't think small businesses should be saddled with high health costs when they already have trouble competing with larger firms.

As long as pre-existing conditions are not excluded, I could be in favor of a plan with an individual mandate and tax credits (much like McCain proposed in the campaign).

 

As a capitalist, I think the profit-making motive for insurance is a good thing. And as a progressive, I think that capitalism must have some controls on it so it doesn't run contrary to the public good. So, what we need is a system that has a mix of private options and a public option, with controls on the insurance companies, and an individual mandate. The new healthcare law, while it has many good things in it, is a huge gift to the insurance companies.

 

Stolen wheels off a car - in the 1970s there was a large psychological revolution in classifying crimes. Burglary and theft became "crimes against property," as if the theft of personal property doesn't harm any person. The result was that theft, even burglary, was given a lower status and priority than any "crime against persons," the new politically correct name for murder and assault.

The largest percentage of a local government goes to the so-called "criminal justice" system. If your local police department pledged to investigate every car prowl, how much of a tax increase would be acceptable? Or would you be willing to pay the same shop rate your local car dealer charges to have a car prowl personally investigated?

 

My point is that it would be difficult for the police to verify that someone with wheels off your car came from your car. There are too many similar wheels to make a positive identification. Therefore it would be a waste of valuable police time.

Back in the 70's I had a motorcycle stolen from where I lived. The police didn't show up. I gave them the details over the phone.

 

This is far and away the most neglected statement in the whole healthcare debate.

Why should we expect the burden of our healthcare costs to fall upon our employers? Why don't we ask our employers to pay our car insurance...after all, most of us drive to work.

My point: My healthcare is my responsibility--not my employers; not the government's. We should keep it in that realm, and quit putting mandates on those who employ us. After all...it just gets passed down to us, anyway.

 

Maricopa County, AZ, is protected by a 'for profit' fire department with which the taxpayers seem quite pleased.

The little knowledge I have of private policing (security companies) is not good. Several years ago the Pike Place Market Assoc (Seattle tourist trap) was displeased with the service they were getting from the SPD so they hired a private agency to patrol the area. It lasted only a short time because apparently their hired guards could not differentiate between the tourists and the winos/punks.

Last month there was a big stink in Seattle because private guards hired by the Transit Authority stood by and watched a girl being beaten because their instructions were to phone 911 if they observed a "police" situation.

In both cases is seems like common sense comes at a price and one doesn't get it by paying ten bucks an hour. Does anyone really want to replace their local police department with rent-a-cops?

 

While there's some overlap there's considerable difference between police and security officers. You, of course, know this well! There aren't very many private police agencies with true peace office status. The railroad police are one exception that quickly comes to mind. We generally expect police officers to be agents of civil government because law enforcement is a key purpose for civil government as is the judicial process that follows on the police work.

But medical care - the work that doctors, nurses, technicians, etc. perform - is not a key purpose for civil government and there's no benefit in turning the private sector that provides those services into a public one most especially at the federal level. The less the federal government is involved in medical care for the common citizen the better the care will be.