Because Rachel said so?:cool:
You know, the federal Govt has a track record running healthcare facilities!
Menmon...funny you only address a few of the posts....some are difficult even for a Dem to challenge! Also, seems like most liberals, you confuse health care and access health insurance. In our country historically, people who needed treatment have always had access to care. Obamacare is the first time in the USA that access to health care will be limited, allocated....which we all soon will find out....
I don't take my cues from any of the spin doctors. I don't know if the healthcare plan is bad or not. My guess is that it has problems, but I'm reserving judgement, and not jumping of this public opinion bandwagon that is political in nature.
Let me give you an analogy. When I worked for IBM, during the days of the vacuum tube, the electrical engineers designed a super computer that was to contain 25,000 vacuum tubes. A little known guy took one look at it and stated that it would never work. The engineers, being upset, said he did not know what he was talking about. In fact not being an engineer he could not even read the drawings. To that he responded that he did not have to read the drawings and that he only had to know that it contained 25,000 tubes. That fact alone would cause it to fail since they would never be able to power up the computer when all of the tubes would work. IBM never built the prototype. They realized that the task they had undertaken defied its working. Trying to write rules and regulations where one size fits all is where the problem lies. I suspect by Jan 2014 the gov. will exceed 25,000 pages of regulation and certainly more that 2,000 waivers, and still the pages will be growing at an ever faster rate and with each page and with each waiver, the gov. only makes the Gordian Knot bigger and bigger.
You say that the issues of need are far too complex for a market system and charity to work. I would submit to you that it is by far the best system to meet the need. Charity does not have to be a system where one size fits all, nor does it have to have a single page of rules or regulation. It may not be perfect but is far better in my opinion that gov. with all its rules and regulations which only creates dependence and control.
Who are you or I or much less the gov. to prevent a patient having cosmetic surgery. Why should a gov. force a doctor to go to another country to provide treatment that a patient desires. As to cosmetic surgery, I am sure there are many examples where people can function normally but look so grotesque that cosmetic surgery would improve their quality of life more than you can imagine. The person who has no nose due to cancer but can breathe. The child who was born with a deformed ear but can hear fine. Cosmetic surgery truly makes their life better. Just a minor example of the 16,000 pages.
At this very minute, doctors are selling their practices to hospitals and becoming employees of the hospital. They are also combining their practices to create mega practices in order to create a bargaining position to deal with the gov. Do you think that now that the doctors are employees of the hospital, can they form a union and strike if they so choose? The Mayo clinic in Phoenix, Az. once chose to terminate participation in Medicare and instantly 7000 patient no longer had access to the medical they had become accustomed. It was caused by, you might guess, a fight over gov. reimbursement of Medicare in Phoenix. By the way reimbursement in different regions is different.
You say that health care is too important and complex to be ruled by profit. Doctors see themselves as having no salary only profit. They look at their revenue and their expenses and that determines their income. To be sure profit is important but their motivation is far more than profit. It goes to their responsibility to provide not only treatment but to provide care to their patients. With the system you so desire, I see treatment provided but care gone by the wayside.
I have no doubt that your goals of providing health care are noble. I just happen to believe that you have chosen the worst possible solution, evidenced by the fact that your countrymen would have to leave your country in order to get the treatment and care they so desire, and that the doctors are forbidden in giving such care to those who want it. There are those who accuse people who want less gov. intervention in health care, only have the motive of less tax. My answer to that personally, is THAT IS A LIE. To be sure, I loathe the waste but far greater than that, I despise the gov. using health care as a tool to force the people into a position of both dependence and control by the gov. To the greatest extent I speak of those who hav the greatest need, those who the gov. proposes to help. They are the ones who become enslaved by the gov. I cite as the classic example, the American Indian who have been "helped" for 150 in this country and look where it has gotten them.
On a personal note, I see the gov. destroying those things of my profession that I was so proud to be a part. I see the profit motive not just a part of the profession but the only part of the profession. This saddens me greatly.