(04-24-2019, 06:21 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote:

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

---

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.

---

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

Why on earth should government provide any coverage? It's not the job of the government to "provide" anything like this, it's their job to legislate and govern. Do you see the cluster Washington is currently in and has been for decades? You really want those folks overseeing healthcare for the people of this country? I don't care that it works in other countries. This country was not built for socialism or any socialist programs and is one reason the programs will never work as designed (and never have) and socialism will never work for this country.

The country was built to exploit various natural resources for the benefit of England and Scotland.  Old-growth timber in New England, tobacco and indigo in the South, etc.  And it was built to bring in and exploit slave labor to the fullest in the process of returning cash to the English and Scottish.
Then it was rebuilt into something that existed for its own benefit but still allowed the possibility of some people owning other people.  
Then it was rebuilt into something that didn't allow people to own other people, but this phase allowed the federal government to standardize money and make it scarce without allowing the federal government to spend money on welfare or social safety net.
Then a supreme Court decision in 1937 said that the federal government could spend money on welfare.
Each of these phases was pretty different from what any other country was, and none of them were permanent.

---