On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship <ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net
> wrote:
Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all
the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined
with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the
compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will
be that it will be like the things government does well instead of
the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate
almost everyone who has to deal with them . . .
Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this
discussion. That would ruin everything.
In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That
question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal
government does run some things very efficiently and some of those
things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given
inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers.
What I fail to understand is how having a public *option* takes away
anyone else's options to use private. There are public schools for the
same reason.
Run a government sponsored mutual healthcare fund, and fold the public
hospitals into it. Make it a genuine option. Then see the private
funds shape up, 'cause they would or they'd lose all their customers
in short order.
C.
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
