Is it me or....?

[Light of Icarus]

So... Am I the only person that thinks the US Goverment is trying make US citizens kill themselves? Not only do they try tax us to death, they're trying to pass a bill saying that any citizen that doesn't have health insurance gets a fine on the upwards of $3,000+... While I agree that health insurance is imparitive I don't agree with their choice of action. Why not make insurance rates lower? Or... better yet, not fine us for not having it.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm kind of pissed about this. Not only do I not have insurance... I don't have a damn job, due to being laid off for "economic" reasons that my employer wouldn't disclose to me.

From what I've seen it would be cheaper to not have insurance and pay out of pocket for a minor doctor bill than to go out and get on private health insurance. When I looked up purchasing my own insurance the average was around 200-300 dollars a month. Not only was I so outraged I wanted to punch baby seals in the face, I can't afford to purchase it.

So... You know what that stupid S.O.B. that started this bill said? "Well... Having auto insurance is a mandatory" Yes... Only if you own an automobile... What an idiot. I don't think the bum down the street has auto insurance, but then again, maybe cardboard box insurance counts as the same thing.

The one thing I can say about this is the fact that Obama is opposing this bill, which might just be the best thing he's done as president to date.

I'd like to hear everyones thoughts on this issue.

(Since my post count is too low to post links... If you'd like to source the article I'm talking about just go to google and type in Health Insurance New Bill $1500 Fine and click on the third link.)

(Link below, courtesy of SecretMethod70. Thanks for being a great admin. )

Peace out,
Icarus.

[SecretMethod70]

Here's the link Icarus wanted to include: Plan would fine Americans for not carrying health insurance | News for New Orleans, Louisiana | Top Stories | News and Weather for New Orleans | wwltv.com

Thanks, Icarus, for being understanding

I don't have time to respond much to this, other than to say the Baucus plan is a joke. I say this as someone who is 100% behind the idea of universal health care.

[Redlemon]

Originally Posted by Light of Icarus

(Since my post count is too low to post links... If you'd like to source the article I'm talking about just go to google and type in Health Insurance New Bill $1500 Fine and click on the third link.)

I'll get that for you.

Originally Posted by Plan would fine Americans for not carrying health insurance | News for New Orleans, Louisiana | Top Stories | News and Weather for New Orleans | wwltv.com

05:37 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Ricardo Alonso-Zalidar

WASHINGTON -- Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

He said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level -- about $66,000 for a family of four -- would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign -- a government insurance option -- appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

[Reese]

That bill would never pass. To fine someone because they can't afford something to begin with? Yeah right. It's totally different than auto insurance simply because your auto insurance is in place to protect other drivers from your fault. Full coverage insurance that protects you when the accident is your fault is not mandatory, at least not in my state.

[Light of Icarus]

I seriously doubt that the bill will pass as well, considering the fact that it would be like them fining you for living. But, it blows my mind that they would actually have the balls to try to fine us for it in the first place. If we can't afford insurance what makes them think that we can pay a hefty fine.

[SecretMethod70]

Requiring some sort of coverage in and of itself isn't a bad idea, but if the government isn't making sure that there is a very affordable, very basic option, then nothing but bad things can come from such a requirement.

[Light of Icarus]

Well the least they could do would be to offer health insurance at a lower rate, like you said, some form of basic kind of health care, even if it were just for dr. visits and co-pay for the emergency room. Maybe not even prescription coverage, since you can find almost anything in generic. But for them to fine us for not having heath insurance is insane.

[Xerxys]

All this talk about insurance ... can someone explain to me why healthcare is so damn expensive? It makes no sense that something as essential as the air you breath not be mass produced and stapled!

[Fotzlid]

We already have something similar to that here in Massachusetts. Everyone has to prove they have health insurance on their income tax forms or they get penalized. I think its either pay more tax or don't get your refund, whichever is the case.

can someone explain to me why healthcare is so damn expensive?

Not in 1000 words or less.
Some of the basic causes are too few general practitioners, exorbitant malpractice insurance rates, too many people using ERs as doctors offices, too many without basic coverage and lawyers (tort reform).
All cost money which gets passed onto the consumer in the form of outrageous hospital bills and over priced insurance premiums.

[Spiritsoar]

I'm kinda torn on the whole health care reform issue. On one hand, yea, it would be great if health care was made more available to people. On the other, I don't really like any of the options. And for the record, though I have ideas on the topic, everything I say kinda mitigated by the fact that I'm already on government health care (military tricare)

First off, the government health insurance plan. I don't like it. The fact is, we're a capitalist society, and I like it that way. Sure, I understand that private health coverage can be expensive, but as pointed out above, that's not all the insurance companies fault. They have to make a profit just like anyone else. Now, if you introduce a government health insurance, despite assurances that say private healthcare will still be available, it's going to turn into a monopoly. The fact is, that government subsidized insurance companies can and , in my opinion, will operate at a loss. This will not only make it difficult for private insurance companies to compete, but it will pass that loss back to the taxpayer.

On the other hand, I recognize the need to provide for those who can't afford health insurance. I wouldn't be opposed to a low-income health care system, which I believe some areas already have. If you fall under a certain income bracket, you can opt into the 'public option', which would charge based on income.

Overall, I guess I can see that healthcare needs refore, but I don't think we're going to do it in a productive way anytime soon. And to be honest, I don't know what that productive way is.

Oh, and yes, fining you for not being able to afford something is retarded.

[PulpMind]

Another example of a lame attempt to reach a middle ground on an issue that leaves no body satisfied. *sigh

I'm absolutely for socialized medicine. The best medical care I've ever received was when I was a dependent of my Enlisted (Air Force) parents, and getting some of the world's best socialized medicine.
It was incredible. I would get sick, and a short time later someone would actually try to fix me, because that was their one and only job to answer to (at which they succeeded 99.999999% of the time).
Now, with (and presently without) insurance, any regular, "civilian," hospital/doctor/practitioner throws me around, sapping every last penny they can either directly or indirectly (by booking multiple consultations so everyone gets their dues from insurance, yadda ya...). I shouldn't have to go to the dentist 8 times for 4 cavities! The dentist should be paid fairly for his work, regardless.

[Light of Icarus]

I agree with what everyone has been saying and the bad thing is, we're living in a socialist time. I'm not going to sit here and start a political debate, I just wanted to get some other peoples views on the matter.

Personally I think I'd rather move to canada, whose healthcare, while being a little on the poor side (compaired to high rated american healthcare) is still free and completely serviceable. I can't stand how people dog it just because it's free, and yes we we get right down to it... It isn't free! They have a higher cost of living than here in the US. In order to supply it's citizens with free healthcare they have to bump up the cost of everything a little. They just don't have any of those pesky $4000 bills waiting on them 3 months down the road.

[Iliftrocks]

If insurance companies were just making a profit that'd be fine, but they are ( literally ) making a killing. Insurance is a significant part of medical costs, just ask any doctor what his insurance overhead is, and ask how many hours a week he has to work just to cover that. One of the major ways an insurance company makes profits is denial of service to paying customers, nice.

My personal belief is that if the government is going to require us to have it ( being anything really ) then the government needs to be the provider. It would negate any conflict of interests. Otherwise you will get the gov't passing bills that charge you for not buying a private industry's product. Eventually it would have you buying a specific company's product, one with a no-bid gov't contract ya know

[Light of Icarus]

Originally Posted by Iliftrocks

My personal belief is that if the government is going to require us to have it ( being anything really ) then the government needs to be the provider. It would negate any conflict of interests. Otherwise you will get the gov't passing bills that charge you for not buying a private industry's product. Eventually it would have you buying a specific company's product, one with a no-bid gov't contract ya know

Well if that was the case then it would be just like everything else government ran. And thus be part of their socialistic movement, not only would that mean a decline in health care and a rise in standardized cost, and one of the only reasons they're even trying to pass this bill is because they know how many people don't have insurance and they're trying to pad their own governmental pocket.

If they do provide health care it needs to be on a level of equal to or above the standard. And as such they shouldn't skimp out on the benefits but also in the same breath I could add that the level of heath care that they could require (so we wouldn't be fined) could be based off of, like say, a basic heath care. I.E. Doctor visits and E.R. co-pay, as a most basic function. And then they could step it up to prescriptions and the like.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Light of Icarus

Personally I think I'd rather move to canada, whose healthcare, while being a little on the poor side (compaired to high rated american healthcare)

Just a little on the poor side. Only 30th in the world as opposed to the US, which is highly rated at #37.

We have the highest healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP than any other country
OECD Health Data 2009 - Selected Data

Our average individual expenditure is the highest in the world, three times that of Australia, which is the second highest.
Core Health Indicators
Yet 28% of Americans are uninsured, our system is less effective than cheaper systems, and we have a lower average life expectancy.


"The US has the best system in the world" is a common sound bite, but it's just not true.

Originally Posted by Light of Icarus

Well if that was the case then it would be just like everything else government ran. And thus be part of their socialistic movement, not only would that mean a decline in health care and a rise in standardized cost, and one of the only reasons they're even trying to pass this bill is because they know how many people don't have insurance and they're trying to pad their own governmental pocket.

There are some services that the government is simply the best provider for. All these people complaining about socialism seem happy with government-run police departments, fire departments, post offices, and national defense. It is not socialist for the government to act as a provider for a service if it can do so more efficiently than private industry.

The industry makes money by denying claims and dropping their most expensive customers. All the right wing talking heads go on about the government rationing care, yet the private industry does exactly that when they refuse to cover pre-existing conditions and charge higher rates to "high risk individuals" like domestic violence victims.

If someone can propose an ethical way to run profit-based healthcare, I'd like to see it.

[yournamehere]

Originally Posted by Xerxys

All this talk about insurance ... can someone explain to me why healthcare is so damn expensive? It makes no sense that something as essential as the air you breath not be mass produced and stapled!

It's quite easy to explain. Healthcare is so expensive because 33% of the money they take in goes to administrative costs, CEO salaries, and company profit. Only two-thirds actually goes to healthcare providers.

Medicare, on the other hand (which is a government-run healthcare company) only has a 1% administrative cost, government-level salaries for those who run it, and no profit. Think of the public option as simply lowering the minimum age of Medicare from 65 years old to 1 day old, and it makes sense - it would save one-third of all costs associated with healthcare.

The biggest problem with Medicare is the blatant fraud being committed by (private) healthcare providers - but that's not Medicare's fault. That's like blaming a theft victim for carrying a wallet. I'll give you a recent example. My wife is on Medicare due to being disabled - she recently went for an MRI of her spine. The imaging center - a private, for-profit organization, not only charged Medicare for the MRI, but they also tried to charge for a CAT scan and PET scan, also. This kind of fraud happens all the time. Yet people blame medicare for it.

As I've said before in many posts - I believe the health of our nation's citizens is too important to be subject to the "massive profit at all costs" management style that has all but ruined our economy in every other sector. Why bitch about all the money we just gave the banks and car companies, yet think it's alright to give billions of wasted money to the healthcare companies? Healthcare companies are nothing more than a middle man - they produce nothing; they provide no service; they contribute nothing. They merely take $3, keep $1 for themselves, then turn $2 over to other entities. Why do we need them, especially considering their outrageously high cost?

And Light of Icarus, you complain of living in a "socialist time," yet you say you'd rather move to Canada, whose healthcare system actually is socialist. And BTW, I've heard from many Americans how bad the Canadian system is; yet I haven't heard many Canadians complain about it.

I had to laugh last weekend at so many of the teabaggers carrying pictures of President Obama with Hitler mustaches; yet calling him a "socialist." Anyone who wasn't asleep throughout middle school knows that you can't get farther apart politically than socialism and fascism.

Actually, when corporations rule government; non-Americans are looked upon with disdain; and domestic racism runs rampant (albeit disguised) - then we are living in fascist times, if you need to put a label on it.

One more thing - then I'm done, I promise.
For all of you out there who say "I'm happy with my insurance company," do you even have a clue how much you and your employer pay for health insurance? Do you even care that if your family's healthcare premiums were reduced by $200 per month, you might get that much more in salary? It's all overhead, as far as your employer is concerned, it all comes out of the same pocket, and it's all part of the cost of having you as an employee. Why do you think salaries are at the same level now that they were in 1999? It's because healthcare costs have eaten into your employers' pockets so much they can't afford to give you a raise. And one more thing - just because you're happy with your insurance company is no guarantee they won't drop you the second you get a serious diagnosis - which is when you'll need them the most.

I will never cease to be amazed at the Republican Party's uncanny ability to convince their members to act in ways that are in direct opposition to their own well-being.

[Light of Icarus]

Hmm a pretty sound theory... Yet.. I don't know anybody who is pleased with the post office nor police, maybe the fire department but seeing as I haven't had any experience with them... Do you want to live in an America where they dictate what you think, what you eat, what you drive, or even what you do with your life? The choices you make versus what they want you to do. Would we be human beings if we didn't make our own mistakes in life. And the government is pretty much trying to eliminate those mistakes to make our lives better.

It is socialist to take control of individual companies and say if you don't do this and this then you're going to jail. I.E. When they took over the automobile companies. I cry socialism because I see it as a problem, I don't care about government run facilities. As far as it matters to me let them keep certain things, because you're right on one thing... They're good at certain jobs which if left up to common people it would fail.

The private health care corporations do offer health care at a high price. They tend to cut the high risk clients, like you said. But is it fair to fine people that don't have a job and can't afford this high rated bullshit? Is it fair that senior citizens have to suffer, even though they've contributed to the economy for their entire life?

All I'm saying is that if the government step up and take control of our health care then they need to do it at lower priced rates because if they expect people who're out of work to be able to afford a fine for not having it then they need to lower the cost to make it more readily available for said people.

[streak_56]

Being Canadian, there's really no difference in my mind between the two systems. Ours is government run, paid for by our tax dollars, you can get additional coverage from other insurance companies to cover more. But for the most part, you can walk into a doctors office, get a check up, walk out, free of charge because your taxes for that year/month will probably cover it. Yeah its something Canadians are proud to have but its system thats there when you need it and paying for it when you don't.

When I lived in Ohio, I thought that the health system was "okay" until I needed a doctor. Then I got taken over a chair and shown who the boss was. Its more for profit than for health and it is a business to insurance companies. I had a friend who apparently was charged for a filling but never got one. Another example of people taking advantage of the system. Yeah I probably was screwed over because I was not an american citizen at the time but there were alot of hoops to jump through before I could get anything worked on. Its a system so long broke that fixing it now would only add more bandaids to it. IMO, as said above, that no matter what you try to do, someone is going to bitch about it, there's a very small middle ground.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by yournamehere

And BTW, I've heard from many Americans how bad the Canadian system is; yet I haven't heard many Canadians complain about it.

That's probably because Canadian healthcare beats American healthcare in pretty much every category you care to measure (WHO.int).

Word of caution, the last link is a somewhat large PDF file (~6 MB).

The idea of American healthcare as Best In The World is a myth; at best, it's only true within certain very narrow constraints, if true at all.

[Light of Icarus]

It's only the "best" if you have the money in which to obtain it.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Light of Icarus

The private health care corporations do offer health care at a high price. They tend to cut the high risk clients, like you said. But is it fair to fine people that don't have a job and can't afford this high rated bullshit? Is it fair that senior citizens have to suffer, even though they've contributed to the economy for their entire life?

A plan that fines people for being unable to afford healthcare will not pass. Medicare needs to be rolled over into a public option in which administrators can negotiate prices on drugs and medical devices, and a public option that will fight for its patients and compete with private options will provide a high level of service for seniors. Many other countries provide healthcare for everyone that the WHO rates higher than ours at a significantly lower per capita cost, so it's hardly plausible that our seniors will be left out in the cold in a reformed system that prohibits dropping expensive patients.

Originally Posted by Light of Icarus

It's only the "best" if you have the money in which to obtain it.

Even then, we're behind the universal systems of developed first-world nations. In no way do I think private insurance should be eliminated, I think that everyone should have access to preventive care and regular treatment.

[hunnychile]

Thank you all for this information.

It's been good to see/read that the truth is still "out there".

America is ruled by oil and the drug companies. It must change and soon.

[guy44]

Originally Posted by Light of Icarus

Hmm a pretty sound theory... Yet.. I don't know anybody who is pleased with the post office nor police, maybe the fire department but seeing as I haven't had any experience with them... Do you want to live in an America where they dictate what you think, what you eat, what you drive, or even what you do with your life? The choices you make versus what they want you to do. Would we be human beings if we didn't make our own mistakes in life. And the government is pretty much trying to eliminate those mistakes to make our lives better.

It is socialist to take control of individual companies and say if you don't do this and this then you're going to jail. I.E. When they took over the automobile companies. I cry socialism because I see it as a problem, I don't care about government run facilities. As far as it matters to me let them keep certain things, because you're right on one thing... They're good at certain jobs which if left up to common people it would fail.

The private health care corporations do offer health care at a high price. They tend to cut the high risk clients, like you said. But is it fair to fine people that don't have a job and can't afford this high rated bullshit? Is it fair that senior citizens have to suffer, even though they've contributed to the economy for their entire life?

All I'm saying is that if the government step up and take control of our health care then they need to do it at lower priced rates because if they expect people who're out of work to be able to afford a fine for not having it then they need to lower the cost to make it more readily available for said people.

Health reform has been debated for decades and experts have been considering the problem of the poor affording coverage under a system with an individual mandate for some time. Obviously you can't pass a health care plan with an individual mandate that doesn't offer so-called hardship exemptions for those unable to afford health care. For the poor, the new health care bill will likely increase Medicaid (a joint federal-state program that helps pay for health care expenses) coverage to people earning somewhere around 133% of poverty. In addition, today's news indicates that the final bill will likely give subsidies (in the form of tax credits) to households earning somewhere between 300% and 400% of poverty in order to offset the cost of health care premiums. All of these measures are designed to help the poor or working class afford health care.

Furthermore, I fail to see how on earth universal health care is equivalent to the government controlling how you think, what you eat, what you drive, or how you live your life. The fact is that our economy cannot sustain itself under the current health care system. The costs of the system are so great that they will literally drag down the economy of the United States as the boomers begin to age. Putting aside the fact that it is criminal to have 47 million uninsured people, or that health care in the US stinks, or that single-payer systems work just fine, the fact is that by acting on this issue Congress is preventing a national catastrophe. Since the employer-based, private insurance run system is going to be left in tact, most people won't even notice much of a difference when this bill goes into effect. How any of this translates into totalitarianism is beyond me.

There are a million other things I could say (about the public option, health care exchanges, etc.) but basically what we're going to wind up with in a month or two is a Rube Goldberg-ian plan designed to get universal health care and start reigning in our health care costs because we have too many political roadblocks to do something sensible like the Wyden plan or single-payer.

P.S. The Postal Service operates everywhere. Anything I give them, shows up where I want it to in a reasonable amount of time. When I move, I can instantly have all my mail forwarded by clicking a few buttons online. Their customer service isn't great, but it's better than I've had with, say, Comcast. In fact, their service is better than I get from Comcast. And when it comes to health care, the VA health care system is actually far and away the best in the United States. I wouldn't want the government to sell me TVs, but I know I hate having private insurance companies control whether or not I get health care procedures. The government IS good at running certain things.

P.P.S. I'm not sure why you're so worried about old people receiving health insurance. Seniors are automatically eligible for Medicare right now, which is relatively highly rated and far better than any private insurance I'll ever receive. In fact, seniors have the least to gain from health care reform because they already enjoy the ample benefits of a well-functioning single-payer system.

[Spiritsoar]

Originally Posted by MSD

There are some services that the government is simply the best provider for. All these people complaining about socialism seem happy with government-run police departments, fire departments, post offices, and national defense. It is not socialist for the government to act as a provider for a service if it can do so more efficiently than private industry.

I actually agree with you, but I can't help playing devil's advocate on this one. Who decides what the government can do more efficiently than private industry? I agree with the services you listed already. Heck I work for the government. But why couldn't the government run other things more efficiently? Why not have government run banks? Or real estate agencies? Food is important to people. What if grocery stores are trying to make too much profit? Make government grocery stores. It'll help out the working class, and rich people can still go to their fancy grocery stores right?

I'll admit I don't know where to draw the line on this one, and I'll also admit that I really haven't solidified my stance on this issue yet, so thank you all for helping me be better informed. But I am a firm believer in a capitalist society, and I think we have to be careful of the slippery slope that leads to too much government control.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Spiritsoar

I actually agree with you, but I can't help playing devil's advocate on this one. Who decides what the government can do more efficiently than private industry? I agree with the services you listed already. Heck I work for the government. But why couldn't the government run other things more efficiently? Why not have government run banks? Or real estate agencies? Food is important to people. What if grocery stores are trying to make too much profit? Make government grocery stores. It'll help out the working class, and rich people can still go to their fancy grocery stores right?

I'll admit I don't know where to draw the line on this one, and I'll also admit that I really haven't solidified my stance on this issue yet, so thank you all for helping me be better informed. But I am a firm believer in a capitalist society, and I think we have to be careful of the slippery slope that leads to too much government control.

Universal healthcare systems are less expensive per capita and as a percentage of GDP than entirely private systems, and the WHO says they provide a better standard of care. That's what convinced me that it's the solution for us. If large numbers of people were starving because of food prices, I would say that it's time to look at nationalizing grocery stores. If a large percentage were homeless because of an inability to find housing, we could start talking about government real estate. Banks are an entirely different can of worms that I don't want to open in this thread.