It amazes me that, with evidence of severe government dysfunctionality all around us, the author of this piece argues for total government control of health care. I can't think of a more ill-informed conclusion.
What evidence does the author produce to justify this conclusion? Some statistical correlations that say countries that have more socialist health care systems seem to have longer average lifespans. There couldn't be other explanations? We hear stories of severe dysfunction in socialist health care all the time, with long wait times and limited resources, i.e., rationing (think VA, or any country you care to name where the government controls access to health care). Why does it follow, then, that those countries also have longer lifespans? Isn't it possible that there are other factors not mentioned?
Why would anyone entrust their health care to government bureaucracy? Is that better than what we have now? I will readily admit that our health care system is very broken, but I think it's because of too much government, not too little.
The answer would be to eliminate government involvement as much as possible, probably totally, and to reinstitute fee-for-service type medical care. That might mean outlawing the preference given for employer-paid health care policies in the tax code.
What it doesn't mean is to get more government involvement, or total control, over this vital service. Medical care is a commodity or a service like any other commodity or service. It needs to be treated as such, with as much market incentive as possible. The problem is not private health care; the problem is a seemingly private system which is just as socialistic as any other. The differences are not significant. You just have to look beneath the surface.
While the US health system may not be socialistic it is certainly not truly private either. Our current regulatory environment serves to place large wealthy individuals and corporations in control of most healthcare. On the other hand there are individual doctors and clinics that have maintained their autonomy and continue to deliver good results. Ultimately many if not most of our health problems are due to low quality so-called foods and over-medication. A large part of the answer is to get government out of the equation. Get government out with its overbearing regulatory environment and you cripple the large corporations that have been hiding behind these regulations for decades to keep new competitors out. Socialized medicine is not what we need. We've all heard the stories- they're great until you have to actually use them.
I do not believe America is a "declining" country as its destruction since 2020 has not been organic but socially constructed by an internal insurgency. The entire world was planned to be depopulated in an oligarch takeover in 1970 to start in 2025 by the Club of Rome. So, excuse me, but I must ask a blunt question: are you one of the infiltrators or paid controlled opposition? Why do you call destruction "decline"?
The US peaked in the decades before the Civil War. It's been a long, slow descent into the pit of swampiness where it now waddles along, scrapping bottom. Not so much the people, but the terroristic government.
It amazes me that, with evidence of severe government dysfunctionality all around us, the author of this piece argues for total government control of health care. I can't think of a more ill-informed conclusion.
What evidence does the author produce to justify this conclusion? Some statistical correlations that say countries that have more socialist health care systems seem to have longer average lifespans. There couldn't be other explanations? We hear stories of severe dysfunction in socialist health care all the time, with long wait times and limited resources, i.e., rationing (think VA, or any country you care to name where the government controls access to health care). Why does it follow, then, that those countries also have longer lifespans? Isn't it possible that there are other factors not mentioned?
Why would anyone entrust their health care to government bureaucracy? Is that better than what we have now? I will readily admit that our health care system is very broken, but I think it's because of too much government, not too little.
The answer would be to eliminate government involvement as much as possible, probably totally, and to reinstitute fee-for-service type medical care. That might mean outlawing the preference given for employer-paid health care policies in the tax code.
What it doesn't mean is to get more government involvement, or total control, over this vital service. Medical care is a commodity or a service like any other commodity or service. It needs to be treated as such, with as much market incentive as possible. The problem is not private health care; the problem is a seemingly private system which is just as socialistic as any other. The differences are not significant. You just have to look beneath the surface.
While the US health system may not be socialistic it is certainly not truly private either. Our current regulatory environment serves to place large wealthy individuals and corporations in control of most healthcare. On the other hand there are individual doctors and clinics that have maintained their autonomy and continue to deliver good results. Ultimately many if not most of our health problems are due to low quality so-called foods and over-medication. A large part of the answer is to get government out of the equation. Get government out with its overbearing regulatory environment and you cripple the large corporations that have been hiding behind these regulations for decades to keep new competitors out. Socialized medicine is not what we need. We've all heard the stories- they're great until you have to actually use them.
I do not believe America is a "declining" country as its destruction since 2020 has not been organic but socially constructed by an internal insurgency. The entire world was planned to be depopulated in an oligarch takeover in 1970 to start in 2025 by the Club of Rome. So, excuse me, but I must ask a blunt question: are you one of the infiltrators or paid controlled opposition? Why do you call destruction "decline"?
The US peaked in the decades before the Civil War. It's been a long, slow descent into the pit of swampiness where it now waddles along, scrapping bottom. Not so much the people, but the terroristic government.
I had a thought the other day: America's problem is its political organisation which is 'federation'.
Some federations seem to work pretty well: the russian one notably.
But i suspect the american federation is destroying the country.
Difference might be the amount of autonomy the States have. I suspect not a lot in russia and a great deal in america.
So you can't get anything truly 'national' going in america.
It cannot really be governed.
So its national government turns its attention outward: to the world hegemony. which fits fine with the mic.
and the mic is the oligarchs etc. that control everything.
and most of whom now seem to be israelis or jews or both.
so it is not a nation.
it is, as they say, a mic
or a loose collection of feuding 'mafia' families.
or a bunch of competing plundering oligarchs.
and a population of 350 million who must be the most politically ignorant and deluded people in the whole world.
and whom no one - at home or abroad, anywhere in the world - has any interest whatever in informing, educating, empowering.
they don't even wish it themselves.
never call for it.
just call for a superman to come lead them. but one half wants a superman in a blue costume and the other half wants a superman in a red costume.
and that's america; a childish insane costume party..