Why I am opposed to Socialized Health Care.
Basically, three reasons:
1) Taxes are theft, and they will have to go up and will be unavoidable.
2) There is no incentive for the government to make it efficient, they can do 1 to cover shortfalls rather than actually cut service.
3) It will make the cost of health care go up, triggering 2.
4) It isn't in the constitution.
Taxes are legalized theft. Theft is the use or threat of force to take property from you. If you do not pay taxes, the government will use force on you. And don't go explaining that I got a chance to vote on it, or help decide. Explain that to the Sheep who lost the vote on a tax to be paid in two shanks. He may have been there when the two wolves voted on it, but it doesn't help.
Government is frequently in the business to try to get everybody's resources together to make something good happen efficiently. Unfortunately, success or failure for them does not get measured or corrected in the same manner it would for us. For normal ventures, if you have a cost overrun, you cut costs or raise the prices. If you cut the costs, you might provide less service or just find efficiency. If you raise the costs, fewer people may buy your service or they may just take it. For the government, cutting costs is hard because the service level is mandated. It is also hard to get a new mandate to reduce costs. However, you have a captive audience and can easily raise the rate and know that your monopoly will pay the difference. (We thought we could share a shank, but we're still hungry.)
Health care providers will have at least two reasons to raise costs. The most likely reason is, to qualify for taking patiences with the SHCS plan, you'll need to follow certain procedures. These new processes will take time and resources, so you charge for them. Secondly, you know that this system is locked in and they will pay, so why not charge more just for fun and profit?
Here's somebody else's research on Socialized Health Care and why it won't work that is much more thorough than I have time to research and write on my own.
Finally, there are no provisions in the US Constitution for welfare. Our founding fathers wanted a limited national government. They also limited its ability to limit the State and Local governments. If you want SHC, get your state to run the program. Your state is an international country, treat it for what it is. The United States is the European Union of North America. That's why they are called States and not Territories. Do you remember reading about "City States" in History? (BTW, I'm always amused at the idea of a North American Union including the United States, Canada, and Mexico. We need a union that contains a union.) We could amend the constitution to include such a service, but I believe that it would be a great disservice to our society.
1) Taxes are theft, and they will have to go up and will be unavoidable.
2) There is no incentive for the government to make it efficient, they can do 1 to cover shortfalls rather than actually cut service.
3) It will make the cost of health care go up, triggering 2.
4) It isn't in the constitution.
Taxes are legalized theft. Theft is the use or threat of force to take property from you. If you do not pay taxes, the government will use force on you. And don't go explaining that I got a chance to vote on it, or help decide. Explain that to the Sheep who lost the vote on a tax to be paid in two shanks. He may have been there when the two wolves voted on it, but it doesn't help.
Government is frequently in the business to try to get everybody's resources together to make something good happen efficiently. Unfortunately, success or failure for them does not get measured or corrected in the same manner it would for us. For normal ventures, if you have a cost overrun, you cut costs or raise the prices. If you cut the costs, you might provide less service or just find efficiency. If you raise the costs, fewer people may buy your service or they may just take it. For the government, cutting costs is hard because the service level is mandated. It is also hard to get a new mandate to reduce costs. However, you have a captive audience and can easily raise the rate and know that your monopoly will pay the difference. (We thought we could share a shank, but we're still hungry.)
Health care providers will have at least two reasons to raise costs. The most likely reason is, to qualify for taking patiences with the SHCS plan, you'll need to follow certain procedures. These new processes will take time and resources, so you charge for them. Secondly, you know that this system is locked in and they will pay, so why not charge more just for fun and profit?
Here's somebody else's research on Socialized Health Care and why it won't work that is much more thorough than I have time to research and write on my own.
Finally, there are no provisions in the US Constitution for welfare. Our founding fathers wanted a limited national government. They also limited its ability to limit the State and Local governments. If you want SHC, get your state to run the program. Your state is an international country, treat it for what it is. The United States is the European Union of North America. That's why they are called States and not Territories. Do you remember reading about "City States" in History? (BTW, I'm always amused at the idea of a North American Union including the United States, Canada, and Mexico. We need a union that contains a union.) We could amend the constitution to include such a service, but I believe that it would be a great disservice to our society.