Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
HMOs therefore are generally for health maintenance, not for unexpected major issues. Is the government going to pay for yearly vaccinations, regular physical checkups, teeth cleanings, etc?
|
It depends on who we use as a model. The most likely solution to implementing universal health care is to remove the "65 and older" from Medicare, at least at first. After that we'll probably play it by ear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
If the federal government can't run a whorehouse and sell whiskey at a profit (mustang ranch in 1990), what on earth makes anyone think they can handle health care on a monumentally large scale?
|
It would be a lot easier to be conservative or libertarian if this were true. But it's not. I can list on and on the incredible governmental success stories in the history of our nation, starting with the creation of the Constitution. Telephone infrastructure was done by the government. The transcontinental railroads were funded by loans from the government. The interstate highway program was all government. Electrification of rural areas. Human genome project. CDC. EPA. FAA. FDIC. GI Bill. Medicare. NASA. NCIC. Public libraries. And yes, even the military. The list of government successes goes on and on and on and on. That people are somehow able to look past all these is beyond my understanding.
What you should be asking yourself is: have less capable governments had successes with universal health care? The answer is a resounding yes.