Should the government provide doctors?

The role of civil government should be to provide a system of justice to punish wickedness and for us to use to resolve our differences without resorting to personal vengeance. To that end the government has a legitimate role in regulation of many activities including commerce - the old weights and monetary standards mentioned in the Bible - and other activities involving the sale and exchange of goods and services including medical goods and services.

Regulating something does not mean absolute control of it or actually providing it. For example one can regulate traffic - limit speed, provide rules of the road, require responsible conduct, etc. but not provide everyone with an automobile or require everyone to have one and not have a traffic policeman at every corner or in your car with you.

The thread posed the question of whether the government should provide doctors - I say no to that - but did not ask whether it should regulate doctors - I say okay to that only to the minimum extent necessary to provide justice for the exchange of their goods and services. The law should be the minimum required - not the maximum possible. It should provide a framework within which individuals can act fairly and responsibly if they wish, be punished if they act dishonestly, and suffer their own consequences if they act irresponsibly.

 

This is where workers compensation insurance comes into play. That's an entirely different issue.

 

They already are regulated! They're licensed by the states in which they practice.

 

"A government and it's agents are under no general duty to provide PUBLIC SERVICES, such as police protection, to ANY particular citizen."
-Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. App. 1981)

If our government doesn't care if we get shot, what makes you think they care if we get medical care for it?

 

I think most police and public officials do care. All that the Warren case says is that police can't be sued for failing to protect a particular individual.

 

This applies in every state. It is a matter of legal obligation. Should every person who gets his car stolen be permitted to sue the government?

The government may obligate itself by contract with an individual. For example, if a police officer says, "We will protect you against . . . " get it in writing.

 

There can still be workman's comp, right?

 

Rankings mean nothing to me, unless i know the criteria, and/or the "agenda" that precipitated the rankings.

For instance, there's that anti-American bunch of nuts that rank Cuba's healthcare system above the USA's. They must smoke some of that medical marijuana to jump to that conclusion.

 

forced to buy their insurance. Think about it.[/quote]

So let me get this straight: insurance companies, who make their money based on their customers not getting sick or injured, will make a killing by being flooded with new customers who are sick and injured? Could you please explain to us how that's supposed to work?

Second, when they start having to drop customers, where is all of that money supposed to come from?

Says the same genius who just stated that insurance companies are going to "make a killing" by having to pay out on countless new claims.