I just received the following letter-

[Oakvale]

Regardless, this appears to benefit my employer and/or me, at the cost of CareFirst.

It's a pretty moderate position to say that you shouldn't inject private profit into a utility or public service, especially when it comes at the expense of the users and yet you're considered some kind of radical communist to insist that utilities or basic health insurance be run by the government so the service is provided at the lowest possible cost.

The thing is that when you have competition (multiple private companies running alongside each other) you have a lot more efficiency and a much better service. When the government does it, everyone gets poor service. When private companies do it, some people get good service (those who pay more), some people get poor service (those who pay less), and some people get none (those who can't pay). I prefer the latter system.

It's really fascinating that - even if we accept your dogmatic excuse for a premise - you genuinely have no problem with a society where the wealthy are entitled to a higher standard of healthcare (and longer lives!) solely because they're rewarded by the current economic system.

Can you honestly say that you have no qualms with a system that means "some people get none"? I find that hard to believe, even considering the source.