(04-23-2019, 10:54 AM)s mikesez Wrote:

(04-23-2019, 08:24 AM)B2hibry Wrote: I reject any expansion of government. The fact of the matter is there is no efficient or economic way for the government to provide health care to their citizens, nor should they have to. Even if they implement an expensive "for-all" system, it will eventually erode to have to include private subsidy insurance. At that point, you've figured out that you need to crawl back to the private sector but you've already done irreversible damage. Now you will need the government to influx another stream of cash to bring the private sector back up from the dumps. One needs to look no further than every example on this planet as well as our own recent ObamaCare failure to see the writing. Remove unnecessary barriers to entry and let healthcare naturally adjust to fair market levels. This is not something and will never be something that the government can influence to benefit all.

I suggest you read the second of the two articles.
Many countries have a blend of public and private care and public and private insurance. 
The natural free market position of health Care is that most people don't get health care.  People can't price shop when they fear imminent death or maiming.
You're inventing a narrative where people shift everything completely to the public sector and then come "crawling back" to the private sector.  That hasn't been the sequence of events or the outcome at any point in history in any place in the world.

---

(04-23-2019, 07:47 AM)Ronster Wrote: I  don’t trust the government to run everyone’s health care. You need only look at the V.A to see what is in store for all of us. Now I know the V.A works well in some areas for some people, but overall it is inefficient and ineffective.

I don't "trust them to run everyone's health care" either, but I think it's necessary for the government to provide a baseline of coverage for everyone, that the private sector can then improve upon.

---

(04-23-2019, 08:30 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Every plan claims to regulate prices, therefore every plan will collapse.

Expanding Medicare merely creates adverse selection in the private market.

Your first sentence is refuted in the second article I posted.
Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I read it. Which article debunks anything I said? Canadians have become more and more reliant on private insurance and private providers since its inception. What used to be nearly 100% fell to 80% and now is lower than 70% coverage by public healthcare. Oddly enough, providers are mainly self-employed private entities. If we look at England, there has always been some form of private care available alongside public but reserved for a rare few. Just like Canada, there is a trend towards private happening now. I'm not going to go through them all as you may get the point. Medicare for all is a pipe dream. Obamacare was a pipe dream. We have access to the best medical care in the world. It is the multi-layered red tape and lack of concurrent modality that hampers. The system needs to be on the same page across the system. Remove barriers and control pharmaceutical companies through anti-trust regulations. You know, the pesky bit called competition law. Fine adjustment is all that is necessary. Health care is an individual responsibility from preventative care to treatment. Don't tell me I owe higher taxes to pay into a system for Johnny fat [BLEEP] that eats nothing but fast food daily and now has a heart condition and other ailments that he can't pay for.

Why are you price shopping on your death bed?

Eliminate your arbitrary "completely" and "everything" (along with "always", those are terms of absolutes people use to escape rational discussion) you will have to look no further than Obamacare to see the narrative. If public healthcare is so desired, why must countries that implement socialized medicine rely on private care at all?

---