Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Why? Because the government, especially in the US has a traditional habit of screwing up with just about every program they finance.
|
Do you include the military in that assessment?
Honestly, though--that view's a cop out and you know it. Essentially, your argument is that "government hasn't done it right, so it's better if they don't offer it at all." That's nonsense. The reason entitlement programs in the U.S. haven't been successful is actually very simple--and simple to solve given the political will. Their programs are not universal and not comprehensive. What they have is a patchwork of targeted entitlements that are expensive and inefficient. The solution isn't a mystery: Universal entitlement programs are better.
Universal entitlement programs are more efficient, and cheaper in the long run than the patchwork of targeted entitlements you have in the U.S. right now. Right now, the U.S. pays MORE per capita than the cost of the entire health care system in Canada--just to fund two targeted entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. You tell me if that makes sense.
Political will is always the problem. But the solution is simple: do away with Medicare and Medicaid and replace them with a comprehensive and universal single payer health care system paid for by a small monthly premium paid by every American.
And yes--that includes the fellow from your example who's poor, but feels invincible because he's healthy. One thing I've learned over the years is that you never know. The healthiest person could wake up to-morrow and be very, very, ill. Trust me. It's happened to someone very close to me.
Clinton isn't proposing that exactly--but she's made it clear that a universal health care system is her objective. I think that's commendable, and contrary to your claim that she's a flip-flopper, extremely politically courageous.