Well, free in that it doesn't cost anything beyond what you pay in tax. Nothing's actually free. I think if we cut the overwhelming amounts of crap & corruption out of our medical/pharma/insurance system and then put a government agency in place to keep it in line, that would be a great improvement. Heck, we could let that agency handle the books as well so it's paid in tax (or, free, as the story goes) but before that agency takes the reigns there had better be a very tight leash around their neck. I don't want them evolving into something just as bad or worse than what we have now. I don't want to wake up one day to find myself in trouble with the government for not eating properly.

 

Got my life for free.

Expensive contract though... Jeeze...

 

We did try for a NHS, but the United States is so polarized politically it will likely never happen. The flawed system we ended up with is likely to be nixed by the Supreme Court, so right now everyone is waiting to see what happens.

Here in the states, the issue is very political. Passionately so, so it puts it on the edge of that which can not be discussed on AAC.

Didn't Britain recently change theirs in a pretty dramatic fashion not to long ago?

 

When I think of the government running a business, I can't help but think of their failed business venture in 1990 at the Mustang Ranch.

 

When I think of the government running a business, I can't help but think of their failed business venture in 1990 at the Mustang Ranch.

or the post office, the DMV, the courthouse, the IRS, nearly everything they do is grossly inefficient and behind the times (ex. relying on snail mail for everything, not accepting plastic payment). Whatever role they play, they usually have a total monopoly on it so they have no natural incentive to not drag their feet, not upset their customers, etc. The ones who seem to perform the best are the ones staffed (at least in part) by idealists - police and fire men. Maybe if we choose people to lead this thing who are not just out to lead something and/or make lots dough, but instead are driven by a personal conviction to help people (hell maybe a handful of prominent doctors who have have a history of speaking out against big pharma) it could be successful.

 

Bill,

I did not address your "How many must die" question. Like all other reactions by the government the answer is too many, and the government will over react. It takes a very long time to be an agenda item in the political world ... and there are very few exceptions to that time period.

In the movie "With Honors", the student's thesis was about how the internet would bring us to more like a true democracy. That has been evolving over the past seven election cycles (every two years). The problem is that some believe everything on the internet, especially if it fits their view of utopia and the forces against their utopia.

Unfortunately very few will argue issues from a logical point of view, the majority argues from an emotional stance probably because that whips their base into a foamy mouthed frenzy.

The reaction by the government will probably bypass some current rules to get the medications to the market sooner. Till that reaction fails, no one will fill the void.

 

stranton,

I agree with your assessment of government "businesses" and I'm sure there will be a group who will supply whatever the demand needs. Will they be competitive with the outside entities? Who knows.

 

Yeah, the NHS has had some pretty big reforms.

Before the election, doctors were wanting more control over funding and management over their own patients and their care.

Then when they are given more control, they complain about having too much control.

Some people are pillocks.

 

Before the election, doctors were wanting more control over funding and management over their own patients and their care.

Then when they are given more control, they complain about having too much control.

Were there additional measures to ensure accountability?

 

I'm not too sure, but it does seem a rather big U-turn on the part of the doctors.

Sometimes a government can do no right.

 

At times it's a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't world.

 

But if you have to err, it is better to err on the side of life.

 

When I think of the government running a business, I can't help but think of their failed business venture in 1990 at the Mustang Ranch.

The gov didn't buy the stANG Ranch. The owner was mudered ion a ahdy deal and the gov seized it. Its still going strong and open for biz.

 

or the post office, the DMV, the courthouse, the IRS, nearly everything they do is grossly inefficient and behind the times (ex. relying on snail mail for everything, not accepting plastic payment). Whatever role they play, they usually have a total monopoly on it so they have no natural incentive to not drag their feet, not upset their customers, etc. The ones who seem to perform the best are the ones staffed (at least in part) by idealists - police and fire men. Maybe if we choose people to lead this thing who are not just out to lead something and/or make lots dough, but instead are driven by a personal conviction to help people (hell maybe a handful of prominent doctors who have have a history of speaking out against big pharma) it could be successful.

A lot of this is just a joke becuase of lACK of funding.With the exception of heLTHCARE, our social services rock.

 

A lot of this is just a joke becuase of lACK of funding.With the exception of heLTHCARE, our social services rock.

whaaaaaat? you're defending the government's efficiency?

I really don't know what to say.

...maybe, go work for them and see if your tune changes? I suppose I have a different perspective, having served in the military and seening just how wasteful and backwards they operate. When I look at any government operation now I see those same things.

 

The gov didn't buy the stANG Ranch. The owner was mudered ion a ahdy deal and the gov seized it.

And the normal part of seizing it was to run it in an attempt to collect enough funds to satisfy the back taxes.

I don't doubt it is in operation today ... but when the Government ran it ... they didnt do too well.

 

I concur IT WAS shut down.

The Mustang Ranch was forfeited to the federal government in 1999 following Conforte's convictions for tax fraud, racketeering and other crimes. It was auctioned off and reopened in 2005 5 miles (8.0 km) to the east under the same name but different ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustang_Ranch