Bernie's Single Payer Health Care

[_huckelberry]

subgenius noted,
"2. Doctor shortages. Already, due to recent patient increases, rural areas in the US are being under served. This is also manifest in peer countries.
3.Because of #2 above quality of care is influenced due to necessary rapid visits, prolonged waits, etc. Basically errors increase.
4. Government run systems diminishes competition and incentives for innovation and development.
5. Increases the argument of subsidized drug abuse
6. Increases government burden and bureaucracy."
...............
There have been significant numbers of people unable to afford seeing doctors except in emergencies so increasing coverage for those people does run some risk of longer waiting line for everybody.(though not so much for emergency rooms and care for advanced untreated ailments)

perhaps innovation will be killed off like it was when the government got involved in the project of going to the moon.

It might also become an argument against subsidezed drug abuse, could be argued either way.

Decrease private insurance bureaucracy and burden when increasing government, a wash.

[_Themis]

4. Government run systems diminishes competition and incentives for innovation and development.

How so? Government encourages a lot of competition and innovation by paying out the money. Is a government who builds roads and has there own crews building them diminishing competition? How about a government who pays for the roads but has private companies compete for the contracts? Can a government who runs a hospital or university not create an environment of innovation and competition?

[_subgenius]

There have been significant numbers of people unable to afford seeing doctors except in emergencies so increasing coverage for those people does run some risk of longer waiting line for everybody.(though not so much for emergency rooms and care for advanced untreated ailments)

So your argument should be about the cost of healthcare not the payment.

perhaps innovation will be killed off like it was when the government got involved in the project of going to the moon.

Ask NASA how that is working out for them today

It might also become an argument against subsidezed drug abuse, could be argued either way.

Which is not a resolution...but I am curious how the government could subsidize drug abuse without being involved in the drug business.

Decrease private insurance bureaucracy and burden when increasing government, a wash.

Yet reality proves otherwise.

[_subgenius]

4. Government run systems diminishes competition and incentives for innovation and development.

How so? Government encourages a lot of competition and innovation by paying out the money. Is a government who builds roads and has there own crews building them diminishing competition? How about a government who pays for the roads but has private companies compete for the contracts? Can a government who runs a hospital or university not create an environment of innovation and competition?

Encourages? "how so?" - government imposes strict and inflexible specifications on projects and services....there is no creative license when building a road.
So...
Nope - building roads with own crews diminishes, nay, extinguishes competition due to the de facto monopoly being created.

Nope - Private companies do not implement innovation for "lowest bid" on fixed specifications....unless you mean innovation of loophole and accounting.

Nope - a government run hospital and/or university does not, and can not, create an environment of innovation and/or competition. These type of institutions are dispensaries of a strict specification. It is the nature of government to homogenize not to innovate. Private endeavors, throughout history, have proven to be the source of innovation and competition. Formula 1 and Nascar do not draw their innovations and competition from the DMV.

[_Themis]

Encourages? "how so?" - government imposes strict and inflexible specifications on projects and services....there is no creative license when building a road.
So...
Nope - building roads with own crews diminishes, nay, extinguishes competition due to the de facto monopoly being created.

Nope - Private companies do not implement innovation for "lowest bid" on fixed specifications....unless you mean innovation of loophole and accounting.

Nope - a government run hospital and/or university does not, and can not, create an environment of innovation and/or competition. These type of institutions are dispensaries of a strict specification. It is the nature of government to homogenize not to innovate. Private endeavors, throughout history, have proven to be the source of innovation and competition. Formula 1 and Nascar do not draw their innovations and competition from the DMV.

I was looking for arguments not just assertions. Specifications are what both private companies and governments come up with. Many need to be put into law which only a government can do. Governments may employ both experts from government or private organizations in coming up with specifications for things like roads.