Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylflon
Prof: You may have answered this question somewhere but I'm actually curious-
Are you opposed to any state run health care plan or just the one that has been proposed?
|
My knee jerk reaction to any universal government run healthcare system would be to say "No", but I will entertain any plan that is offered. As for targeted gov. healthcare, I currently like the idea of MedicAid, if not everything about it's delivery.
I will support any plan that controls costs, allows people to choose what type of healthcare they will receive (including their own doctors) or even if they want it, and does not ration care to make ends meet. I have never seen a government run plan that meets any of these requirements.
I actually think government "assistance" is a great idea, meaning using the government to organize the 15% of Americans who don't have health insurance and then present them as a group to insurers to bid on the group as a whole. This is called "risk pooling" and would make this group an economically viable group to insure at reasonable rates. Right now the uninsured must shop as an individual, and the system is built to address groups and manage risk, leaving the individual with few products aimed at them and they are all expensive. I would even be in favor of tax credits to help these people afford the care if they aren't poor enough to qualify for MedicAid.
My main problem with government run anything is that it tends to provide low service and stagnate innovation. Look at telecommunications: For years this was an industry carefully regulated by the government to ensure that everyone had access. While everyone had access, the access was terrible. For decades you had to be issued a phone from the company, rotary phones at that, and eventually push buttons. If you wanted to save mesages, you had to buy an answering machine.
Since deregulation, the products and services have gone through the roof and prices have never been better due to intense competition between companies. We're starting to see it now in Cable TV as well, as Verizon and Comcast start beating each other up. That doesn't mean "free" markets are always the answer. I think cell phone companies need to have the trust-busting hammer come down on them to unlock phones from contracts because I think these "phone-to-service" contracts are artificially raising costs of data service to mobile phones (I mean you, AT&T and Verizon). I don't believe in free markets, I believe in competitive markets (and no, that does not include the US government as a competitor, just a regulator and arbiter). Free markets can become uncompetitive one company dominates the rest and then it harms the consumer because once there is no competition there is no reason to control costs (only to maximize profit).
Yes, I know healthcare isn't phone service, but it shares many of the same challenges (universal service being the main one) and they've managed to control costs and improve service 10 gold by
carefully deregulating and ensuring competition. Right now, healthcare remains one of the most regulated services in the country, not even being able to compete over state lines. There is no room for competition to naturally reduce costs and increase service. Those that claim that the current healthcare problems are caused by open markets don't know what an open market is.
Hope that better illustrates my point of view.
EDIT: Game, if your posts are aimed at me, I wouldn't bother. I set you to ignore after our last debate. I find thats the best way to have a rational conversation with you.