This story is a bit coy, but I think the point is valid. Progressives believe that the government can be used to improve all of our lives more efficiently than the private sector. I live in a relatively rural area and when I call 911 the local fire department sends an ambulance to my house. It would be difficult for a private ambulance service to be on call 24 hours a day and make a profit. Not to mention 911 is itself a government service, possibly operated by a subcontractor, but nevertheless paid for with tax money. Would you want to rely on a private police force or a private fire department for protection? People do, but it gets expensive. It's a better deal for the rest of us to pay the levies on our yearly tax bill and share the costs of these basic services.

Exactly!

just don't forget the downside. Several people have sued police departments for NOT showing up for a LONG time when a crime was in progress and lost, because the police have the obligation to protect society, not you personally.

You might not like that same thing being done in health care.

Bondsman, maybe i'm imagining things, but I could swear I've seen you on the Fray arguing that Medicare should be extended to everyone.

Your police example is a bit silly. I'd say the fact that "several" people have sued over police negligence--out of the tens of thousand who receive police help each year--is pretty damn good evidence that sometimes it IS in our best interest to share the costs of certain important services throughout society. After all, I'd wager that the police's record of helping citizens far surpasses that of, say, private health insurance companies, who certainly do not feel they have an obligation to protect me or society.

fletc3her:

This story is a bit coy, but I think the point is valid. Progressives believe that the government can be used to improve all of our lives more efficiently than the private sector. I live in a relatively rural area and when I call 911 the local fire department sends an ambulance to my house. It would be difficult for a private ambulance service to be on call 24 hours a day and make a profit. Not to mention 911 is itself a government service, possibly operated by a subcontractor, but nevertheless paid for with tax money. Would you want to rely on a private police force or a private fire department for protection? People do, but it gets expensive. It's a better deal for the rest of us to pay the levies on our yearly tax bill and share the costs of these basic services.

A point about government services such as those you mentioned is they are not federal services. The solution to health care costs and availability may indeed be government, but that doesn't always mean federal government. If your 911 call had to be transferred through Washington would it have been better? And if was paid for by federal taxes would that make it more efficient?

To me the federal government does well on large, wide reaching projects where it can treat every individual as the same. For example civil rights legislation or national parks. Everybody's treated the same and it benefits people equally. But can the federal government effectively provide health insurance when we have such vastly different people and places. Woudl what works for the Texas valley work for San Francisco? Subsidized clinics may work best for the former and competitive high end health care insuance plans may would work best for the latter.

So in the end I have to repeat that there are many essential things government does to make life possible in this country, just the majority of those things aren't federal government. And one of the greatest strengths of the federal government, the ability to treat all people equally and the same, is at the same time one of its greatest limitations. I don't think it's necessary to have all people in this country to join together to get real change in the healthcare system, rather just enough in certain areas with common interest to make it work for them.

Another quick point about federal government; the federal government are good rule makes, just not good administrators. The job's just too big for them. Another way of saying 'lawmaker' is 'rulemaker'. The federal government, namely congress, was created to make laws or rules for peple and business to follow. For example, the federal government can and has said December 25th is a federal holiday and any employee required to work on this day gets double wages. It's a good rule, the people pretty much agree with it, and the people follow it. Now if the federal government then says they'll tax any company that has their employees work on December 25th and use those taxes to pay the extra wages owed to the emplyees you can see how this quickly dissolves into a difficult, far reaching, and unreasonable task.

What the federal government needs to do in the case of health care and most other things it's gotten itself into is to just make the rules and maintain the authority to enforce them and allow the people (including the smaller state and local governments, since what is government in this nation but the people) to follow them. By the federal government saying they must create a federal program and administer it themselves shows to me their contempt for the American people combined with a play for wealth and power backed by the might of the United States government (government in this case meaning the ruling class not the people).

Make the rules and we'll follow them, that's what I believe. Lord over me and not only will you discover my resentment but worse you're not even good at it.

Bonny, Don't get me wrong, I'm all for national health services, BUT, I'm realistic enough to accept the downside. I get creeped out when people think the government will give them more without taking anything back- there will definitely be a trade-off. And on the police, after a few cases are definitively decided, there won't BE more as precedent has been set.

Ah, I see. I suppose I take it for granted that people understand there will be tradeoffs with government involvement in health care. But you are correct that many see only the upside (or downside, for that matter; hence the teabaggers).

on making the illogical comparision of federal governemnt to local government? It's not as if they are even remotely similar in the breath or level of power they wield. Most local governments are actually constrained by charter whereas todays federal governemnt appears to be constrained by nothing, neither in spending nor warmongerong.......

"there will definitely be a trade-off" Why are you so sure of this? There's 20-some countries with universal care, obtained in 3 or 4 different ways (national insurance, national health service, regulated mandated insurance, who knows what else), and they all spend less, measured either per capita or as % of GDP, and they all have better life expectancy and better infant mortality.

dr2chase:

"there will definitely be a trade-off" Why are you so sure of this? There's 20-some countries with universal care, obtained in 3 or 4 different ways (national insurance, national health service, regulated mandated insurance, who knows what else), and they all spend less, measured either per capita or as % of GDP, and they all have better life expectancy and better infant mortality.

They aren't the same country we are. For example, a colleague was an advisor for chemotherapy drugs. He went to England and they agreed said drug was effective but would only give it to people with X life expectancy based on some worth of a year of life calculation. Can you imagine that here? "Sorry, that's too expensive, here's your morphine, go home and die". It may be coming, but it'll take a mindset change for the public.

What I think will happen is that when somehting needs to be cut there'll be a big outcry and it will get "temporarily" approved anyway, over and over.

Why shouldn't we think the government will give is more. THE GOVERNMENT OF EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATION ON EARTH does, in fact, give their citizens more health care for much less money.

We pay half again more than anyone else and suffer far more risk, for similar "sick care" and worse results. We are getting a horrible deal and should scrap our system completely.

Despite the rhetoric, the current bills in Congress are tiny modifications of the system, not some massive leap to the left. Indeed, if they were to pass, we would STILL have the most right-wing system among advanced nations.

You haven't been sick and dealt with your private insurer for anything other than checkups and a few pills, have you?

Just wait until you are sick enough to COST them money and watch how they treat you.

Sakura:

Why shouldn't we think the government will give is more. THE GOVERNMENT OF EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATION ON EARTH does, in fact, give their citizens more health care for much less money.

Baloney.

Plus, that's like screaming in rage because we pay more for ... automobiles. We're wealthier.

There is no evidence -- none -- that anyone else gets better healthcare. And lots of evidence that, for example, Canadian women are 20% less likely to have had a mammogram in the past two years, in the critical age group of 50-69.

As late as 2003, Canada's Medicare STILL had not approved FOB screening for colorectal cancer (stool samples), while Canada had the highest death rate in the world

<link>

If colorectal cancer is not detected early, it's almost always fatal. So Canadians also die of undetected cancers, My father had it, so I get tested every year. My Medicare pays for ANNUAL FOB testing -- while Canada was still refusing to pay for it EVER..

And THAT is why we pay so much more as a nation. Medicare. Medicare pays for many procedures, more often, than any country on earth. No country can match us, because no other country has enough costly imaging and diagnostic equipment to detect the cancers.

"Know the truth and it shall set you free."

http://PoliticallyHomeless.net
"allegiance to neither political party"

A point to TomK3 on his point that emergency services aren't federal services; Maybe not per'se, but how much money do states get back from the federal government to help pay for those same services? It's all part of the general fund, so to speak.

I don't want a totally federally controled health care system, but I do want one that is regulated over all by the federal government, and lets the states run their own system on the ground. Just like we do with so many other services.