[IanDrake]

Total BS.

Have any figures to support your first point? Here's CIGNA: http://yhoo.it/TLkvyd increase in Net Income: 2010 - 3.3%, 2011 - (1.3%)

>the more they will be able to dictate our choices

Private companies can't force you do to anything, only government can do that. http://bit.ly/Q4lj1s http://nbcnews.to/rK90ox

>government control is that we actually have some say in how the government controls us because at the end of the day we control the government.

That was a joke right?

As it is there is a shortage of nurses and doctors. Partly because it costs a lot of money and effort to enter that profession. How many people will be motivated to go that direction if they'll be slaves to government decree? It will take some time, but the effect of government controlled healthcare will be a race to the bottom.

Also, the profit motive is what keeps costs down and service levels high. The less regulated an industry is, the better the service and products are available to consumers who now have choice.

[beagle3]

> As it is there is a shortage of nurses and doctors. Partly because it costs a lot of money and effort to enter that profession.

In the not-so-distant-past (less than 10 years ago!) mostly because the AMA tightly controls the influx of new people to the field, in an attempt to make sure that the salaries remain high: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4561/does-the-am...

(Although now they are trying, so far unsuccessfully, to reverse it)

> How many people will be motivated to go that direction if they'll be slaves to government decree?

Instead of philosophizing in the void, why don't you look at other countries where, gasp, that is the case? Look at Canada, France, the UK, Israel, Hungary, and any other single payer country. Medical schools still have a 1:10 acceptance ratio, and are usually the hardest or 2nd hardest to get into. There is no "race to the bottom" in countries that had this system for over 50 years.

> Also, the profit motive is what keeps costs down and service levels high.

And yet, the US system is the most expensive system for what it gives (compared to single payer), and what it gives isn't better when you measure e.g. life expectancy. I would say you never actually looked at data if you can say that with a straight face.

> The less regulated an industry is, the better the service and products are available to consumers who now have choice.

I agree about that, but the US healthcare industry is extremely regulated in all the wrong ways. For example, they are exempt from any claim of anticompetitive or antitrust. How do you think that affects choice?

[IanDrake]

>And yet, the US system is the most expensive system for what it gives...

I was making a generalized comment. As you said, the US healthcare industry is extremely regulated, which is what I believe is the root of the problem we face.

People who want a the government to control health care are pointing at a system with a ton of government interference and saying "Look that isn't working well, we must need more government."

>How do you think that affects choice? Poorly. But they're exempt because they're also force to take all comers. It's a water fall of faulty logic and regulation.

I'm not defending the current system. I'm advocating a free market system, which isn't anything like what we have right now.

[beagle3]

> People who want a the government to control health care

No one wants the government to control healthcare. Many people want the government to run healthcare, and accept that as a result it will be government controlled . You might consider this a distinction without difference, but it paints supporters of public health care in a light they do not deserve. An analogy:

You seem to want my health care to be controlled by people whose own profit is their motive -- in fact, by corporations who are required by law to maximize shareholder profit at the expense of my health.

> "Look that isn't working well, we must need more government."

Most are saying "look, that isn't working well. But e.g. NHS in England is working extremely well. Let's copy that". And after looking at the NHS, it turns out that you need more (and especially, a very different kind) of government involvement.

Can you point to a working example of a system that you believe in? Because if you can't, I think the NHS and government involvement carry a LOT more weight as arguments.

[te_chris]

You say that as if socialised medicine is somehow novel and untested? Look at most of the Commonwealth countries, there are no shortage of students applying to study medicine and they still get paid well. Take your blinkers off - or leave them on to be honest, I'm super happy with my socialist healthcare (which I supplement with cheap private cover for faster elective procedures).

[IanDrake]

Look at most of the Commonwealth countries. Which one specifically?

>I'm super happy with my socialist healthcare

Net consumers are typically very happy in socialist environments, no shock there.

[beagle3]

> Net consumers are typically very happy in socialist environments, no shock there.

99.9% are net consumers when it comes to healthcare. So you're saying we shouldn't do something that makes everyone happy?

The 0.1% providers should be made happy. Apparently, despite the claims laid by many Americans who argue this, almost every other western country has managed to make those providers happy enough to not all quite en masse and leave everyone without access to healthcare.