I just received the following letter-

[Vosem]

Regardless, this appears to benefit my employer and/or me, at the cost of CareFirst.

It's a pretty moderate position to say that you shouldn't inject private profit into a utility or public service, especially when it comes at the expense of the users and yet you're considered some kind of radical communist to insist that utilities or basic health insurance be run by the government so the service is provided at the lowest possible cost.

The thing is that when you have competition (multiple private companies running alongside each other) you have a lot more efficiency and a much better service. When the government does it, everyone gets poor service. When private companies do it, some people get good service (those who pay more), some people get poor service (those who pay less), and some people get none (those who can't pay). I prefer the latter system.

Also, t_host just won this thread. I never thought I would type that, but he totally did and it was awesome. 

[Vosem]

Regardless, this appears to benefit my employer and/or me, at the cost of CareFirst.

It's a pretty moderate position to say that you shouldn't inject private profit into a utility or public service, especially when it comes at the expense of the users and yet you're considered some kind of radical communist to insist that utilities or basic health insurance be run by the government so the service is provided at the lowest possible cost.

The thing is that when you have competition (multiple private companies running alongside each other) you have a lot more efficiency and a much better service. When the government does it, everyone gets poor service. When private companies do it, some people get good service (those who pay more), some people get poor service (those who pay less), and some people get none (those who can't pay). I prefer the latter system.

It's really fascinating that - even if we accept your dogmatic excuse for a premise - you genuinely have no problem with a society where the wealthy are entitled to a higher standard of healthcare (and longer lives!) solely because they're rewarded by the current economic system.

Can you honestly say that you have no qualms with a system that means "some people get none"? I find that hard to believe, even considering the source.

Yes. Healthcare is a service; nobody is entitled to it. Even if we disregard that, ultimately under a government-funded care system care will be of a poorer quality than it will be under a free-market system for those that can afford it, and I don't think we should not allow people to buy the better healthcare they can afford. And, yes, not only can I honestly say I have no qualms about such a system, I'm pretty confident the majority of Americans agree with me based on opinion polling.

From a European point-of-view the American healthcare debate is downright bizarre, because in Europe free healthcare is regarded as an innate right more sacred than even your right to own guns, but in America the majority of people don't want it.

[Vosem]

I've just accepted Vosem's bizarre dogmatic reactionary views, but I just hope that he doesn't identify as one of those 'compassionate conservatives' or whatever.

I don't think I'm bizarre, dogmatic, reactionary, or a compassionate conservative.