- Jun 12, 2001
This has got to be a joke. Government is accountable to the people, not the individual voter. If your argument were actually true, that would mean you support GW Bush and the Iraq War. Oh wait, you don't? Then where's this accountability you speak of?Originally posted by: senseamp
Government. Because it's accountable to me as a voter, while corporations are only accountable to their shareholders, and not to me. When corporations deny care, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing as corporations, maximizing profits for their shareholders.Originally posted by: ja1484
...Not so much, because it's already in place, and changing would have its own costs involved.Originally posted by: senseamp
Actually, the question should be not what problem a universal healthcare system is solving over current system, but what problem the current system is solving over universal healthcare systems that cost 30% to 50% less in other countries and deliver better results. The current system has to justify it's added keep.
The REAL question is, would you prefer to have the government manage the insurance money pool rather than private companies?
After all, we all know how fiscally responsible the government is, and what good spending decisions they make....
In the meantime, competition and the need for profits does give corporations some accountability to its individual consumers. They're practically desperate to customize their multitude of products to exactly what each consumer desires.
And rest assured, government will be denying care under even the grandest of socialized health care plans. If you feel more comfortable with a bureaucrat making decisions of life-and-death rather than a regulated and competitive business, well...