[derrell]

Originally Posted by formerroadie

Sorry, I must have misspoken. It's not what I meant about price. First, it's not single payer. It's an option and the prices would be set in the government option, not all the others. They would have to compete as they see fit.

I understand people's concerns, but, for the most part, many of the countries in this world that have this do quite well. Is it perfect? no. Anything involving humans will never be perfect .

Your right you didn't mention single payer I didn't read the quoted posts close enough. But a private company that has to show a profit will find it hard to compete with any government sponsored plan. The government doesn't have to show a profit. When they are short they just take a little more from everyone to make up the difference.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Do you have a problem with the government providing a police service? An education service? A fire department? A defence force? Waste and sanitation services? Roads and rail services?

These are all "socialized" services.

If you have no problem with those services being provided by government I really can't fathom why you would have a problem with socialized health care? Is health care any less of a universal need than any of the above?

Or should everyone be obliged to pay for their own personal security guards, tutors, fire brigade, army etc etc, like, it seems, they are required to pay for their health care?
Cheers,
PKFFW

This was pretty much the quote I remembered from the other thread. As glennD says most of what you list is provided by state governments. The citizens of each state can decide how much of what they want and how they pay for it.

The fire department doesn't apply to me though as I live in a rural area where there isn't a fire department and I pay higher home owners insurance premiums because of it, and the last place I lived yes you did pay for the volunteer firefighters responding to a fire on your property.

The armed forces are a proper thing for the government to provide. Along with the interstate highway system to move them around the country. That includes the taxes and tariffs to pay for it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Does the constitution specifically permit the Federal government to use tax-payers's money to buy motor manufacturers, or banks? If it can do this, why can't it run a health care system?

This is an excellent point Harry. No it shouldn't allow them to do that and a strict reading of it doesn't grant them that power. That is part of what is fueling the health care debate. Our government is stepping way outside of the bounds that they should be working within.

The car companies and banks should have failed. They could have just as easily gone into bankruptcy and restructured without government intervention. In fact that was what GM and Chrysler did. Took the money and then filed bankruptcy. Thats how the U.S. government ended up with controling interests in them and private investors got screwed in the deal as well.