Thursday, June 28, 2007

Nationalized Health Care?

Remember when the debate was raging about the formation of the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security?

One of "compelling" arguments for the creation of it was that it would create new efficiencies by combining bureaucracies and save us money.

So far none of that has come to pass.

Note today's headline from the Washington Post:

Costs Skyrocket As DHS Runs Up No-Bid Contracts

$2 Million Security Project Balloons to $124 Million

Full Story Here:
Those of us against it were very skeptical of any improvement in the bureaucracy and definitely discounted any potential savings. Quite the contrary. It should have been obvious that this would be less efficient and cost more.

Why would I go out on a limb and state this?

Simple really...just go back and look at how government runs things currently. Virtually every program or bureaucracy created costs substantially more now than estimates put forth prior to their creation.

Which brings me to my main thought of the day....

Why the hell would we want government to take over the health care system?

Do we really want a top down approach to our health care? Do we want some official in DC telling us what we can and cannot get medically?

Based on how the government currently works...what gives any proponent of universal health care the idea that government can do it better than private industry?

Examples please?

What can you point to that the government runs that costs less then what private industry can do?

All you have to do is watch the way government runs things like the Department of Homeland Security to get an idea of what will happen if they were to ever take over health care.

And may I remind you that the Department of Homeland Security would be very small in comparison to the bureaucracy needed to run universal health care.


Post a Comment

<< Home