Ineptitude of Government run Health Care?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IvanKaramozov
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IvanKaramozov

Guest
So, I constantly see as an argument aghinst universal healthcare that anything run by the federal government is less efficient than privite enterprise.

My question to those people is that seing as the military is an utterly government run institution will you be soon supporting the elemination of the national standing army with competitiong cooporations such as Blackwater, and if not why not?

If you would not favor the elimination of the military, and there is no a priori reason that government run programs and institutions cannot work, then why is universal healthcare doomed to faulure?
 
Well, it is noble try at an argument, but there is no equivalency.

Could a private military be more efficient and cost effective? I would argue that it probably could. But, no one thinks that military the size of the United States Armed Services in the hands of a private organization is a good idea.

Besides, a well-regulated militia is actually part of our Constitution. Last I checked, a well-regulated healthcare system is not. 🤷
 
rlg94086 said:
Well, it is noble try at an argument, but there is no equivalency.
Click to expand...
they are both Bureaucracys, yet one is rulled out a priori as necessairly to inefficient and cumbersome, and the other isin’t
Could a private military be more efficient and cost effective? I would argue that it probably could. But, no one thinks that military the size of the United States Armed Services in the hands of a private organization is a good idea.
Click to expand...
if it would be more efficient why not?
Besides, a well-regulated militia is actually part of our Constitution. Last I checked, a well-regulated healthcare system is not. 🤷
Click to expand...
There is a difference between a well regulated militia and a standing national army, furthermore the constitution does not say there MUST be a well regulated militia, only that the framers felt one was necessary, and that as a consiquence the right of the poeople to bear arms must be respected,
 
IvanKaramozov said:
they are both Bureaucracys, yet one is rulled out a priori as necessairly to inefficient and cumbersome, and the other isin’t

if it would be more efficient why not?
Click to expand...
Because the military should be under the control of the people, not a corporate interest.
There is a difference between a well regulated militia and a standing national army, furthermore the constitution does not say there MUST be a well regulated militia, only that the framers felt one was necessary, and that as a consiquence the right of the poeople to bear arms must be respected,
Click to expand...
And healthcare is mentioned where? 😛
 
rlg94086 said:
Because the military should be under the control of the people, not a corporate interest.

And healthcare is mentioned where? 😛
Click to expand...
Thanks be to God for reproductive rights. We won’t have to bother worrying about the poor.😃
 
IvanKaramozov said:
Nowhere, and that is relivent how?
Click to expand...
It is relevant in determining whether the government should have any role in healthcare. Clearly, it should have a role in the military according to the Constitution. One of the primary roles of the government is the defense of its people.
 
rlg94086 said:
It is relevant in determining whether the government should have any role in healthcare. Clearly, it should have a role in the military according to the Constitution. One of the primary roles of the government is the defense of its people.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how, it is not unconstitutional, so I don’t see the fact that it was not relegated to the state or federal government at all relivent, public education is also not something that the constitution adresses, however it sure is handy.
 
IvanKaramozov said:
I don’t see how, it is not unconstitutional, so I don’t see the fact that it was not relegated to the state or federal government at all relivent, public education is also not something that the constitution adresses, however it sure is handy.
Click to expand...
That is debatable sometimes. 😉 😃

I’m not sure what you mean by “not relegated to the state or federal government.” The Constitution is actually clear…although our elected politicians often ignore it:
Amendment X
Click to expand...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
IOW…according to the Constitution, the federal government should not be involved in healthcare or education. I have already posted in other threads that I’m okay with limited state involvement in healthcare. However, I don’t try to kid myself into thinking that the government care will be the same as or better than private care.
 
rlg94086 said:
That is debatable sometimes. 😉 😃

I’m not sure what you mean by “not relegated to the state or federal government.” The Constitution is actually clear…although our elected politicians often ignore it:

IOW…according to the Constitution, the federal government should not be involved in healthcare or education. I have already posted in other threads that I’m okay with limited state involvement in healthcare. However, I don’t try to kid myself into thinking that the government care will be the same as or better than private care.
Click to expand...
Well, one could rebut by invoking the Elastic Clause… and the Constitution that it should “promote the general Welfare” in the Preamble. It might be deemed “necessary and proper” for the government to provide for the uninsured. The Constitution does not preclude that interpretation.
 
ribozyme said:
Well, one could rebut by invoking the Elastic Clause… and the Constitution that it should “promote the general Welfare” in the Preamble. It might be deemed “necessary and proper” for the government to provide for the uninsured. The Constitution does not preclude that interpretation.
Click to expand...
Weak.
 
IvanKaramozov said:
they are both Bureaucracys, yet one is rulled out a priori as necessairly to inefficient and cumbersome, and the other isin’t
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be so quick to make that judgement.
They may be good at what they do, but a running joke I have seen in commen with everyone I have ever worked with in the armed services was the waste that they dealt with on a routine basis.

Either way, it is still an apples and oranges argument as healthcare is not called for within the constitution.
 
IvanKaramozov said:
they are both Bureaucracys, yet one is rulled out a priori as necessairly to inefficient and cumbersome, and the other isin’t.
Click to expand...
The difference is this – the military has competition and the healthcare bureaucracy doesn’t. Inefficient and inadequate soldiers are quickly weeded out (by the enemy), but bureaucrats have no such weeding out.
 
why not apply the same logic to the police force. Why shouldn’t victims pay for the cost of law enforcement on their behalf? Perhaps we should all be forced to take out insurance for that.
 
cynic said:
why not apply the same logic to the police force. Why shouldn’t victims pay for the cost of law enforcement on their behalf? Perhaps we should all be forced to take out insurance for that.
Click to expand...
Because they aren’t the same thing. Your “logic” is just absurdity dressed up as logic.
 
cynic said:
why not apply the same logic to the police force. Why shouldn’t victims pay for the cost of law enforcement on their behalf? Perhaps we should all be forced to take out insurance for that.
Click to expand...
In many areas, people do – for example, private security firms patrol many shopping malls, parking lots and neighborhoods.

Remember, the Court has ruled there is no right to police protection – even though you pay for it with your taxes, they don’t have to come when you call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top