|
 Originally Posted by daThomas
Your argument boils down to, "we either accept the method of healthcare delivery in which people profit from illness (which is the one that's failing by the way)" or "allow a gov't run CHOICE which you say will drive private insurers off the cliffs leaving nothing but gov't run healthcare". paraphrasing of course.
I challenge you that if the gov't can provide healthcare at a cheaper rate than private insurers, ALL THE BETTER. If the private insurers can't compete then perhaps illness is not a viable thing to profit from.
Not at all. I simply do not trust the current plan of a massive implementation to improve the healthcare system. I'm also not trying to polarize this issue; there is plenty or room for many points of view.
That leads me to my view on this debate; I would rather see this debate at the state level, and have each state come up with a government plan. There could be federal oversight or even intervention when things go wrong. I don't know the right answer to solving healthcare issues, but I am pretty sure that most of our politicians don't either. In this way, we could see what actually works and what doesn't, or at least have some real studies to guage what direction we go in.
However, since there is not consensus in how to implement such systems, it seems extremely risky to implement something on this scale without any real case studies. People refer to foreign countries all the time as the case studies, but most of these countries don't have our population and diversity. Some of these countries would better compare to a state rather than the whole U.S. What works for California isn't necessarily going to work for Texas, Rhode Island, Georgia, etc.
I guess all my argument boils down to is, lets slow down, and do this right from the bottom up, not the top down...
|
|
|