Comments on: Government Health Care and Efficiency

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:05:37 +0000

"It's true that a national Software Company would almost certainly save money compared to our current Rube Goldberg system, but I suspect the savings would be modest. Rather, the real advantages of national Software are related to things like access (getting everyone covered), efficiency (cutting down on useless -- or even deliberately counterproductive -- administrative bureaucracies), choice (allowing people to choose and keep an operating system instead of being jerked around everytime their employer decides to switch software providers), and social justice (providing decent, hassle-free software for the poor)."

What if Bill Gates started a nationwide push for universal software coverage? Kevin Drum's arguments hold just as well.

By: somebody

somebody — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:39:49 +0000

Honest liberals will admit that universal health care is more inefficient than privatized health care (just like any other service in the market). However, the philosophical basis for the leftists isn’t freedom. It’s equality. They hate the fact that some people are better off than others. It’s always about “social justice.”

By: tk

tk — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:19:09 +0000

Every year I pay more for my insurance and every year I have my benefits reduced. I’m paying an arm and a leg for my families insurance and still have high deductibles. While my care is efficient and of good quality, I don’t know how much long my family can afford this trend of higher prices an lower benefits. I make a pretty good salary and still have this problem. I can’t imagine what families with lower incomes must go through. All for the profit of the insurance companies… not that you can blame them. As public companies, it’s their responsibility to maximize profits. That’s why the system is screwed. They’re trying to maximize profits while I’m trying to get affordable health care. It doesn’t work.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:14:02 +0000

Medicare is *not* cost effective. Studies showing it to be so either assume certain costs to be zero or ignore certain costs entirely. Even if it were cost effective, health care with service like the DMV isn't worth it no matter how little it costs.

Btw, women's groups want universal health care is because (a) women as a class are a lot more liberal and socialist-leaning than men, and (b) they want abortions to be "free". The overarching goal is to subsidize women cradle to grave so they can proclaim themselves independent of men (but not, as a matter of "social justice", of their money).

By: Robert Recht

Robert Recht — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:29:52 +0000

Which insurance co are you tied to? I've experienced private insur then went to Medicare. Not perfect but far, far better than what you tout. And it has actually improved thru the years and become more cost effective. If it insured those under 65,( it insures those over 65 who are the "sickest" and cost the most, ) it would be even more viable because of the increased size of the pool and a far healthier one at that.
Republicans and health insurors are intent on destroying Medicare, a successful single payer plan, and will say and do anything to do this. Your arguments are worn, transparant, inaccurate and full of holes.