Question for universal health care advocates

[SPC]

I'm just wondering, even if you think our health care system needs to be changed, why do you think the government can sucessfully manage it? Hasn't the government already proven that it can't even count votes or keep bridges safe? Why do you think the government will take care of your health any better through a single-payer system?

[SPC]

But, can someone point out how the same government who can't count votes, track down terrorists, manage foreign wars, or keep bridges from falling down will be able to get us health care that is more efficient than the current system? People also seem to forget that we are not capitalistic in the health care industry to begin with, so what makes people think that more government control is the way to go? Third-party payers and government have no incentive for quality health care, but private companies do.

[SPC]

After seeing how they build levees and bridges, do I really want them running health care?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about Katrina. Thanks, Brandon.

[SPC]

Also, if the government fails at something, the people can vote them out of office. People can't vote a corporation out of office.

Well, not directly. Someone could "vote" for Walmart over Costco by shopping there. If a corporation fails to make a profit, which can be obtained by having enough "votes", then they go out of buisiness. Conversely, corporations that make profits by having enough "votes" prosper. Presumably, people will "vote", as in buy from, for the corporation that provides the lowest cost and the best customer service. Considering that this happens on a quarterly basis (because that is when corporations get their profits), while government elections happen on a two year cycle, that would mean that corporations reflect the electorate 8 times better than the government.

[SPC]

Also, if the government fails at something, the people can vote them out of office. People can't vote a corporation out of office.

Well, not directly. Someone could "vote" for Walmart over Costco by shopping there. If a corporation fails to make a profit, which can be obtained by having enough "votes", then they go out of buisiness. Conversely, corporations that make profits by having enough "votes" prosper. Presumably, people will "vote", as in buy from, for the corporation that provides the lowest cost and the best customer service. Considering that this happens on a quarterly basis (because that is when corporations get their profits), while government elections happen on a two year cycle, that would mean that corporations reflect the electorate 8 times better than the government.

However,  if a corporation can make the higher profit by having higher costs and fewer customers as opposed to more customers and lower cost they will, and that is the line they are going down.  They realize by having prices as high as they are they may have less customers than they would if their prices were lower, but they can still make a higher profit.  Decisions should be based on how it can help people, not how it helps corporate fat cats bottom line.

I am talking about the ideal capitalistic health care system, not the only partially capitalistic system we have currently. Under a free market, market incenive will be have more customers for lower cost. Only under a government subsidized system that we currently have can the opposite happen. Under government subsidies, corporations don't have to consider customer satisfaction because they make money no matter what. In a truly capitalist society, what benefits a corporation will also benefit the lower and middle classes. It is truly in the best interests of corporate fat cats to have socialized health care because they don't have to spend money to insure customer satisfaction. It is the lower and middle classes who suffer in a socialized system.

[SPC]

Also, if the government fails at something, the people can vote them out of office. People can't vote a corporation out of office.

Well, not directly. Someone could "vote" for Walmart over Costco by shopping there. If a corporation fails to make a profit, which can be obtained by having enough "votes", then they go out of buisiness. Conversely, corporations that make profits by having enough "votes" prosper. Presumably, people will "vote", as in buy from, for the corporation that provides the lowest cost and the best customer service. Considering that this happens on a quarterly basis (because that is when corporations get their profits), while government elections happen on a two year cycle, that would mean that corporations reflect the electorate 8 times better than the government.

However,  if a corporation can make the higher profit by having higher costs and fewer customers as opposed to more customers and lower cost they will, and that is the line they are going down.  They realize by having prices as high as they are they may have less customers than they would if their prices were lower, but they can still make a higher profit.  Decisions should be based on how it can help people, not how it helps corporate fat cats bottom line.

I am talking about the ideal capitalistic health care system, not the only partially capitalistic system we have currently. Under a free market, market incenive will be have more customers for lower cost. Only under a government subsidized system that we currently have can the opposite happen. Under government subsidies, corporations don't have to consider customer satisfaction because they make money no matter what. In a truly capitalist society, what benefits a corporation will also benefit the lower and middle classes. It is truly in the best interests of corporate fat cats to have socialized health care because they don't have to spend money to insure customer satisfaction. It is the lower and middle classes who suffer in a socialized system.

Not exactly.  In a truly capitalistic system profit by these corporations are still put above anything else, thats all they will care about.  Highest profit possible, and that often leads to policies and costs that leave the middle and lower class either unable to afford it, or pay it and lose something else that is needed.  decisions will still be made on a pro-profit basis and that is exactly what is wrong with our current system.

You seem to think that capitalism is a zero-sum game. There is a point on the graph where the corporation will make more profits by selling at a lower price, which is also good for the lower and middle classes. IN a truly capitalist system, insurance wouldn't pay for 6/7ths of your health care costs and prices would be cheaper.

[SPC]

Also, it should be pointed out that we have government-run health care in one industry, and it was disasterous. Does Walter Reed ring any bells?