3 ms·

Well one thing to consider is that a great many countries have managed to do it so we aren't exactly charting scary new territory. We've essentially been told

Well one thing to consider is that a great many countries have managed to do it so we aren't exactly charting scary new territory. We've essentially been told that this has succeeded so the real question is why haven’t we at least tried our own version of it? Every single job or project has the risk of eventually being taken over by less competent people (or at least, people who didn't understand the entire original vision). Every taxpayer has to live with the fact that he or she won't agree with everything the government does with money. I would have personally loved to have contributed no tax money at all on the military wastes of the last decade, for example. Taxpayers don't really get to choose at a low granularity, otherwise everyone would find some way to cherry-pick to the point that nothing big could get done. The way to fix it is to put skin in the game personally. Quit your job and apply to work for the government; or, write to a congressman and really press on them that you consider this important; or better yet, tell 50 of your friends and get some network effects; or join some larger group that petitions for change (as so many other groups do).

bsbechtel 11y ago
Your points are not completely unreasonable, but there is more to consider. I agree with you about wasting tax dollars on military affairs in foreign countries, but at least those expenditures are (theoretically) temporary. Consider that many other countries, mainly in Europe, have managed to put in place a single-payer healthcare system over the last 20-30 years. In the time span of governments and the legal system, this is the blink of an eye. Again, consider statistically that eventually someone incompetent is going to be put in place running one of these systems. This happens in government, and it happens in the private sector (how many firms are in the S&P 500 from 20 years ago?). The difference in the private sector is, when failure happens, individuals are free to choose a competing option, and are not forced to continue to pay for the failing one. I'm sure you've heard the lines about how competition in free markets (truly free, not highly regulated insurance) drive down prices too. Consider also that no benefit system has lasted longer than a generation and been successfully managed by a federal-level government. The closest we have is Social Security, which is well on it's way to bankruptcy here in the U.S. Furthermore, the great majority of what are considered good single-payer healthcare systems have been implemented in countries with Parliamentary Style Governments. What this means is when the party in power is no longer doing it's job, the citizens or opposing party can vote them out, more or less ASAP. The difference with this and our Constitutional Style Government is that if we elect the wrong person, or they put the wrong person in charge of our healthcare, we have very little power to change the situation for 4 years. In this sense, those Parliamentary Style Governments operate closer to what an actual free-market operates, giving their Citizens much more power over who runs and manages their single-payer healthcare system than we could. The reason we haven't tried our own version of it is, because once it is implemented, it is very, very hard to change or roll back. Furthermore, as is with all the data coming out about Obamacare, it is very hard to actually judge whether such a program is actually successful.

bsbechtel 11y ago

Your points are not completely unreasonable, but there is more to consider. I agree with you about wasting tax dollars on military affairs in foreign countries, but at least those expenditures are (theoretically) temporary. Consider that many other countries, mainly in Europe, have managed to put in place a single-payer healthcare system over the last 20-30 years. In the time span of governments and the legal system, this is the blink of an eye. Again, consider statistically that eventually someone incompetent is going to be put in place running one of these systems. This happens in government, and it happens in the private sector (how many firms are in the S&P 500 from 20 years ago?). The difference in the private sector is, when failure happens, individuals are free to choose a competing option, and are not forced to continue to pay for the failing one. I'm sure you've heard the lines about how competition in free markets (truly free, not highly regulated insurance) drive down prices too. Consider also that no benefit system has lasted longer than a generation and been successfully managed by a federal-level government. The closest we have is Social Security, which is well on it's way to bankruptcy here in the U.S. Furthermore, the great majority of what are considered good single-payer healthcare systems have been implemented in countries with Parliamentary Style Governments. What this means is when the party in power is no longer doing it's job, the citizens or opposing party can vote them out, more or less ASAP. The difference with this and our Constitutional Style Government is that if we elect the wrong person, or they put the wrong person in charge of our healthcare, we have very little power to change the situation for 4 years. In this sense, those Parliamentary Style Governments operate closer to what an actual free-market operates, giving their Citizens much more power over who runs and manages their single-payer healthcare system than we could. The reason we haven't tried our own version of it is, because once it is implemented, it is very, very hard to change or roll back. Furthermore, as is with all the data coming out about Obamacare, it is very hard to actually judge whether such a program is actually successful.