To paraphrase a programmers idiom:
Person 1: "We have a problem!".
Person 2: "I know! We'll get government to fix it!".
Well, now you have two problems.
You may infer from my idiom that I am opposed to government controlled health care (or government controlled prety much anything).
You would be right. All you get when you ask government to fix a problem is the original problem, with the government superglued to it. The problem still exists, but, by God, it now has a government stuck to it, so it must be better.
Here's the big question:
What do you get when you ask government to do something for you? You get an agency (bureaucracy) to oversee it.
What is the primary goal of a bureaucracy?
The primary goal of a bureaucracy is the perpetuation of the bureacuracy. The original 'purpose' of the bureaucracy comes in at a distant second.
If actually solving the problem would result in the cessation of the bureaucracy, then the bureaucracy will *never* solve the problem.
Now, we get to health care controlled by the government.
It *will* be a bureaucracy. If you think otherwise, you're naive.
Here's another bit of info to digest:
The 'goverment must control health care' group quotes the 'statistic' that some 46 million people are without insurance.
The truth is that of those 46 million, the majority are either eligible for insurance from their employer (but choose to not take it), or make more than $75,000 a year, and could afford it if they choose.
Once you get down to it, there might be as many as 6 million who don't have insurance, and don't have easy access to it.
Given that, why don't we spend our time and effort so that we can provide those outliers with insurance, rather than trying to force everyone into a one size fits all program?
Now, we come to the point where the nanny state advocates rail against the 'profits' gained by the 'evil' insurance companies.
Well, here's an interesting issue for you. The power that the insurance companies currently have? Yeah, that comes as a direct result of government intervention.
The laws that mandate specific coverages. The laws that state that insurance companies cannot compete across state lines.
And many more. These are the direct results of lobbying by various interests, with the result that they limit the options available to individuals.
There's room for reform of the current health care landscape. Those reforms are best accomplished by enabling the free market and competition, not by giving even more power to a central authority of any sort (especially government)
Contrary to the beliefs of some, there is nothing wrong with making a profit. That's how real work gets done.
There *is* a problem, caused entirely by the existence of a large and powerful government, with industries that lobby that government for special favors, because those favors give them a government supplied advantage to potential competitors.
We don't need government to provide health care. Done right, we can cover the outliers with sensible changes to the base rules, and letting the free market do its job.