| cerberus wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 18:38 |
i don't think that the government could be capable of administering health care
efficiently; and i think that people should have the choices that
a private system affords.
|
Well, maybe your government couldn't administer health care efficiently. I'm Rumsfeld did lose $1.5 Trillion....
But all the other industrialized nations of the world, and a few developing countries are doing it very well.
I'd argue that based on the private insurance system, you aren't afforded as many more choices as you might think. And many of you, according to the stats, can't afford your choices.
Why pay a lot more money for worse service? USA pays way more for health care, has the highest overhead, and ranks #37 on the list.
Time to look at another model, I think...
| John Ivan wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 15:50 |
Hey, If we can figure out a robust high quality national health care system that truly covers everyone, and do it better than everyone else in the world, I'm all for it.{and it's done pretty well in a few places} In other words, I think it should be a right of American citizenship. Doing what it takes to help everyone be as healthy as possible is worth the investment, followed closely by REAL quality education. These are both things that we should have if we want them.
|
Actually, it's done really well in many other countries. The big business propaganda is what has kept the USA as the only industrialized nation from adopting one of the successful models.
And I agree with you. Quality health care and education is absolutely essential for a successful and just society.
