gopqed wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
Government services aren't the only way to meet public needs.
nice red herring. nobody said that it was the ONLY way. but if it is a viable option, i see no reason that it should not be explored, given that the cost of such a system is substantially lower than private coverage.
sooz drew a distinction between "ideology and public need" when I talked about a general government-run healthcare system not being a proper role for government, implying that a government system was required to meet the public need.
well, we can point to several institutions where government IS required to meet a public need- at least according to most people. one is common defense. i personally have some disagreement with that, but it is widely argued that it belongs on the list. another is basic interstate infrastructure/coordination. it is argued occasionally that both of these large scale projects should be privatized. do you agree?
it has also been argued, since Truman at least, and arguably since Roosevelt, that healthcare is another such large scale project. the reasoning is that everybody needs it, and that profit, marketing, ass covering, monopolization pricing, and most of all CONFLICT OF INTEREST prevent private carriers from doing the best possible job.
furthermore, from a business perspective, having to compete in the global marketplace which includes companies delivering medical care to their employees for HALF the cost is a definite disadvantage. especially as medical costs become a SIGNIFICANT factor in employment costs. so ironically, it should be capitalists like me that are arguing most vociferously FOR single payer, in that it has been PROVEN to drive costs down. this fact is so widely accepted that it is only argued on the lunatic fringes like the Von Mises weirdos.
to be succinct, EITHER this is a project worthy of national presence OR it is a matter of strategic business importance. by either standard, it diserves PUBLIC attention.