I disagree with premise of the article that business is no better than government in controlling health cost. One could make the argument that a free market solution will not reduce costs, but to say that government can run it better and cheaper than business, his own article admits that won’t happen. For government to control health care, it would have to justified such a takeover by running it by several degrees better than business, i.e., a draw does not win it for government.
I hate to diss on Paul Ryan because at least he’s trying but I looked at that first budget he came up with and it was not impressive. He was assuming an umemployment rate below 5%. How is that happening anytime soon?
It seems to me we would be a lot better off adopting the Chilean model for retirement and just getting rid of the fraud and waste in Medicare.
I know I keep beating a dead horse but how is it that even good old Paul Ryan cannot name even one govt agency he could bear to see shuttered? I can think of 5 agencies that if shut down the average American would never even know it.
I will guarantee that grandma will do a much better job getting the best insurance deal if she has a choice and can buy only what she wants and needs. Liberals think we are too stupid to make good decisions, that's how I know the writer is a liberal.