3 ms·

It is also perfectly reasonable to believe that the problem is that we already have too much government control, so turning it all over to the government is har

by tsally 17y ago

It is also perfectly reasonable to believe that the problem is that we already have too much government control, so turning it all over to the government is hardly the solution. I am not aware of any health care reform legislation in the United States from any party that advocates turning it all over to the government. You actually suggest this several times in your post, so you seem to be misinformed. Your points about the article itself are valid. Some people do ignore the fact that there are informed people on the opposite side. However, your argument would have a lot more credibility if you demonstrated understanding of the issue you are writing about.

jerf 17y ago
I simplify for, well, simplicity. No 20-word summary could capture the bills. (After all, that's, what, 1 word per 200 pages of bill or so?) As summaries go, it's not entirely unreasonable either; once the bills are in place, the only things the government won't control is basically things it is choosing not to control, which on the grand scale of how much control they'd have comes in pretty close to "total control". At least in the US, that is not how our government is supposed to work. I mean, it's not like I made an effort to hide my biases here... :)
anamax 17y ago
It is also perfectly reasonable to believe that the problem is that we already have too much government control, so turning it all over to the government is hardly the solution. > I am not aware of any health care reform legislation in the United States from any party that advocates turning it all over to the government. "all over" is an exaggeration, but do you really want to argue that Obamacare wasn't imposing significantly more govt control than we currently have? If you concede that point, then you're just arguing about the magnitude of what's left in private hands. Note that using private firms for health services does not imply that those services are not under govt control. For example, the postal service uses contractors to transport mail, but that doesn't imply that the postal service isn't govt controlled.

by tsally 17y ago

jerf 17y ago

I simplify for, well, simplicity. No 20-word summary could capture the bills. (After all, that's, what, 1 word per 200 pages of bill or so?) As summaries go, it's not entirely unreasonable either; once the bills are in place, the only things the government won't control is basically things it is choosing not to control, which on the grand scale of how much control they'd have comes in pretty close to "total control". At least in the US, that is not how our government is supposed to work. I mean, it's not like I made an effort to hide my biases here... :)

anamax 17y ago

It is also perfectly reasonable to believe that the problem is that we already have too much government control, so turning it all over to the government is hardly the solution. > I am not aware of any health care reform legislation in the United States from any party that advocates turning it all over to the government. "all over" is an exaggeration, but do you really want to argue that Obamacare wasn't imposing significantly more govt control than we currently have? If you concede that point, then you're just arguing about the magnitude of what's left in private hands. Note that using private firms for health services does not imply that those services are not under govt control. For example, the postal service uses contractors to transport mail, but that doesn't imply that the postal service isn't govt controlled.