alan1
Gold Member
Well, at some point, I'll 'splain it again, 'cause they're already involved -- maybe not in YOURS -- and it makes a whole lot more sense, since they're determined to BE involved to do the RIGHT WAY.
Or does it make more sense to try and keep them less involved?
I don't want some government bureaucrat getting involved in my personal health care decisions.
Look at it this way, if I was determined to rape you, would you want to be raped in the RIGHT WAY?
Not a good analogy. Rape is a crime.
Health care is a need, regardless of who pays. I certainly understand the government has no credibility with respect to a track record for handling much of anything. That's the problem in a nutshell. You've got all these bureaucrats who don't know shit about health administration trying to deal with the entitlement programs we already have, trying to make a deal with insurers and the pharmaceutical companies, trying to figure out how to protect physicians who are getting killed with malpractice insurance because because they refuse to enact tort reform, and trying to figure out how to ensure that everyone has access to the health care system.
It really doesn't have anything to do with your personal decision making. It has to do with creating an efficient system from which everyone has a choice, and in which there are no overlaps or gaps. It isn't as difficult as everyone would like you to believe it is -- they just don't know how to do it.
In my opinion, the analogy is somewhat related because almost every time the federal government gets involved in something I feel like I'm being raped.
You are correct, the government (especially federal) has a crappy track record when they get involved in trying to fix something. War on poverty---fail, War on drugs---fail, improving the education system(federal involvement)---fail, social security----fail.
Now why would I want them involved in my personal health care? I prefer they didn't get the opportunity to fail at that as well.