Replies

Even the military isn’t THAT efficient.

Neither are private businesses. Again, the central driving point that I am trying to make is that there are a priori reasons for and against government intervention on various issues, and the matter ultimately is an empirical issue. Europe's economic woes are generally a strong testimony to the fact that the private solutions are better. But health care is an exception.

I, (and a lot of other people here) don’t support the free market because it works (even though I’m glad it does). I support it because it’s the only moral economic system that allows trade without the use of force.

The only moral way you can have socialized health care is if you have a check box on your tax form that allowed the government to tax you more in return for getting in the system. (of course that would collapse in two seconds and I would have a good laugh)

You say, But health care is an exception. You sound like a nice man and some of your arguements seem plausable, could you give me an example where government health care is working well and isn’t killing the tax payer in the process?
Considering that the marginal tax rate in most socialist countries is over 65% this would seem to be a bit more that most of us , who pay taxes, are willing to afford.

Europe's economic woes are generally a strong testimony to the fact that the private solutions are better. But health care is an exception.

One thing that happens when the government takes over something is that the priorities of the system are driven by ideology, and not the desire to solve problems. The government will be more concerned about forcing doctors to live in South Dakota because that is what is right and not be practical in any sense. I worked for the Feds for 13 years as an engineer and politics bleeded down to the level that we were being lobbied by politicians about what manufacturer to use to change out a circuit breaker.

One thing that is true of all socialized medicine cases (care is free) is that the first thing to go is the infrastructure so that whatever the state the technology for an MRI is, that technology will freeze in time, i.e there will be no incentive to improve the MRI. If you look at all the socialized countries, except for in a few flagship hospitals, the technology they use today is the technology they had when socialized medicine was enacted.

That is why the US currently has all the latest technologies, because there is incentive to drive down costs and improve profits. With a government program the incentive is whatever the whim of the current government officials/bureacrats are without any regard to problem solving or improving efficiency or quality. Nothing could be further from a bureacratic's mind. Look what the CDC does with its money for example, building a new 100 million dollar visitor centers which noone uses (the existing one was only 11 years old).