Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
(wow, this is like 4 topics where we get to go here?)
I don't think there's any easy way to address the "gaps".. like the prices, bureaucracy, coverage, and quality without a lot of government intervention. They're about to get their toes stepped on if there's going to be real healthcare reform, no matter how the government goes about doing it.
To me its a question of would you rather throw tax money away into a system that the private sector controls the bottom line on, or would you rather throw money away into a system that the government controls the bottom line on.. Do you trust the government to do te right thing with tax dollars, or do you trust the private sector to do the right thing with tax dollars?
No matter what, there's going to be "more government control" over the private sector in the healthcare industry. Or there's simply not going to be healthcare reform and everything will stay the same for people who are currently insured.
|
On the surface, your argument seems to be plausible. But I believe you're operating under a faulty assumption.
Why must one assume that increased government control is necessary for health care reform? As I have clearly shown in previous threads (using actual numbers as part of my evidence) it is very likely that increased government control is in large part to blame for the increased price of health care goods.
Remember, in the 60s, when there was much less government control and regulation of the health care industry, the majority of health care payments were made out of pocket, ie. they were affordable.
You also forget that the federal government created today's PPOs and HMOs that have become much maligned by those in favor of the public option. How do you defend against those two points?