You want social medicine. Let me give you two cogent examples of how the government does "adequate" medical care. And adequate is all anyone would get in a national system. Adequate as defined by a set of bureaucratic laws. Some may think that would level the playing field, but if you read about
Walter Reed Army Medical Center & Naval Hospital Jacksonville
you will shudder at how the government provides adequate care.
Especially since a large portion of management of those hospitals is outsourced to for profit companies. By for profit, I am speaking of a Halliburton subsidiary, who for some reason seems to pop up often in the Bush administration.
Comments
You want social medicine. Let me give you two cogent examples of how the government does "adequate" medical care. And adequate is all anyone would get in a national system. Adequate as defined by a set of bureaucratic laws. Some may think that would level the playing field, but if you read about
Walter Reed Army Medical Center & Naval Hospital Jacksonville
you will shudder at how the government provides adequate care.
Especially since a large portion of management of those hospitals is outsourced to for profit companies. By for profit, I am speaking of a Halliburton subsidiary, who for some reason seems to pop up often in the Bush administration.
Wikipedia:
.
A map of the countries of the world with UHC is hardly a convincing argument of why we should have UHC.
and with the elimination of a profit motive, costs can be contained.
I agree with everything in your post but this.
Costs are contained because care is rationed not because the system becomes more efficient or because profit is removed.
Less care = less cost.