Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
You and me Sundevil!Those are all federally based healthcare programs. They are all clumsy and cumbersome because they are run by a clumsy and cumbersome federal government. You want some sort of government run healthcare system? Fine, let the states set up their own as they see fit. Then, if and when it fails it doesn't necessarily break the entire healthcare system. Proponents of single payer like to ballyhoo the Canadian or Swedish or whatever the system du jour is, but they never recognize the sheer numbers those systems serve. Canada is about 1/10 the population of the US, Sweden about 1/30. Smaller systems, serving fewer people, and thus more easily administered.Many people here are against government involvement in a wide range of areas, particularly health care. These are generally the people who will also say that government involvement in extra-Constitutional matters is a sign of socialism, communism, Marxism.
Okay.
So rather than toss around generalities on health care, let's get specific. The following health care-related programs are based on varying degrees of government involvement/funding, so they would need to go in your scenario.
Please indicate what free market health care would look like for the constituents, and the benefits to America overall:
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- VA
- ACA
Thanks!
.
BAM !!! Out of the park.....
Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.
But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......
The morons on the left really don't get it.
Neither do the dicks on the right.
So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?