Universal health care

[dazzleman]

I don't support universal health care supplied by the government.

First of all, the government supplies nothing in essence.  Fellow citizens supply things, with the government as their means of delivery.

And government has proven to be an incompetent, ineffective, and inefficient means of delivery for most of the services it provides.

I would fear that with government as the means of delivery, overall quality would fall, and those with money would opt out of the government system and obtain private health care, effectively paying twice.  That is how it works with education in many areas, and I have no reason to believe that government health care would be any better in general quality than inner city education.  Government reduces things to the lowest common denominator, and seeks to equalize inequality by pulling down those who are doing better.  This is not in the interests of the vast majority of people. 

There could perhaps be piecemeal programs to help those without health care, as we have now, but I'd go no further than that.  I don't want government controlling such a large segment of the economy, and I don't want government directly involved in things like medical school admissions, etc.  I still remember that Hillary's health care plan required admissions quotas for medical school to "ensure balance and diversity."  I am completely against that, and I don't trust government with that kind of power.

[dazzleman]

I don't support universal health care supplied by the government.

First of all, the government supplies nothing in essence.  Fellow citizens supply things, with the government as their means of delivery.

And government has proven to be an incompetent, ineffective, and inefficient means of delivery for most of the services it provides.

I would fear that with government as the means of delivery, overall quality would fall, and those with money would opt out of the government system and obtain private health care, effectively paying twice.  That is how it works with education in many areas, and I have no reason to believe that government health care would be any better in general quality than inner city education.  Government reduces things to the lowest common denominator, and seeks to equalize inequality by pulling down those who are doing better.  This is not in the interests of the vast majority of people. 

There could perhaps be piecemeal programs to help those without health care, as we have now, but I'd go no further than that.  I don't want government controlling such a large segment of the economy, and I don't want government directly involved in things like medical school admissions, etc.  I still remember that Hillary's health care plan required admissions quotas for medical school to "ensure balance and diversity."  I am completely against that, and I don't trust government with that kind of power.

I've never heard anybody suggest that the government provide healthcare. Instead, some have suggested that the government pay for healthcare. The difference is enormous.

First of all, government pays for nothing.  Citizens pay for it through their taxes, and government is the transfer agent.  Second, the person who writes the checks calls the shots, and since government would be writing the checks, it would be calling the shots.  I don't think too many people would like the result, honestly, based upon other areas where government has controlled things.  I have no faith.