[Calbeck]

Government best serves when it is acting as a third-party arbiter without a "dog in the fight". When government becomes the health provider, it can no longer fulfill this function in an effective manner.

Both government and private institutions have the same essential goal: to survive, and theoretically prosper. Private institutions prosper by obtaining profits from their labors, government institutions prosper by obtaining influence and power within the political system.

Placing health care in the hands of a government entity does not eliminate the "profit motive" one tiny bit. It merely changes what will be considered profitable, and in what ways that profit may be obtained.

Because political systems are in many ways less accountable than monetary systems, and because making government a provider largely negates its ability to be an arbiter, a government-controlled health system has more opportunity for exploitation and malfeasance than does a government-regulated private health care system.

[sasquatch2]

Psudo

Quote:

but these problems seem like the logical results of an artificially regulated marketplace.

An associatte who was KGB said....

"We have a pretend economy....they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

"Socialism doesn't work but you will have to try it."