Homeland Security monitoring journalists

[jp1]

That certainly is one of the more lucid options on the table. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for and against. Being on the side of smaller government my own preference involves trying to find a solution through the markets. Starting from where we are right now it would be difficult to absorb the healthcare system into the government with anything short of a Hugo Chavez approach. Nothing is perfect, but I do think our healthcare system works pretty well. We just need to get more people participating in it.

Personally I would lean towards placing healthcare in the same category of critical public service that the gov't should provide, along with fire departments, police, etc. The thing in common is that they all deal with life and death issues. If one doesn't think that the government should be providing healthcare services, then it's easy to see how one would think that we should all be hiring private security forces and fire brigades. The only reason that no one (or very few people) think this, is because police and fire departments became public services a long time ago. If we had gone with a gov't single payer healthcare option back in the 40s or 50s, like most every other first world country, we would probably not think anything of it now, anymore then we do fire departments and police departments. We would just accept it as normal.

An argument could be made that healthcare workers require much more training/education etc, and that that is expensive and/or that because of that those people deserve to be paid well. I won't disagree. So if we have public healthcare then lets make sure they get paid appropriately for what they do.

[Gregg]

[Gregg]

An argument could be made that healthcare workers require much more training/education etc, and that that is expensive and/or that because of that those people deserve to be paid well. I won't disagree. So if we have public healthcare then lets make sure they get paid appropriately for what they do.

That is very true and certainly part of the equation. I have not seen any research along the lines of what it would cost or save if all medical school and training was subsidized by the tax payers. I'm guessing we can't afford to do it*, but that is only a guess. As long as nurses are coming out of school $30K in debt and doctors $150K+ (just to target the two most obvious of the hundreds of healthcare positions) I don't see any fair way to nationalize healthcare.

*Whether we can afford it or not is something that seems to get lost on alot of people who passionately argue in favor of initiating a full plan, right now. It really does matter.

[Alan]

If we had gone with a gov't single payer healthcare option back in the 40s or 50s, like most every other first world country, we would probably not think anything of it now, anymore then we do fire departments and police departments. We would just accept it as normal.

By that reasoning I suppose that if in 1787 the founders had simply submitted for ratification a constitution which clearly laid out their plan to allow the federal government to benevolently rule it's subjects, and had that constitution then received approval from the several states, we'd all be happier, healthier and wiser.

[jp1]

By that reasoning I suppose that if in 1787 the founders had simply submitted for ratification a constitution which clearly laid out their plan to allow the federal government to benevolently rule it's subjects, and had that constitution then received approval from the several states, we'd all be happier, healthier and wiser.

And by your reasoning the person who was behind on their fire department insurance should have to stand there and watch their house burn down unless their neighbors are generous enough to come running over with buckets and hoses.

[Alan]

And by your reasoning the person who was behind on their fire department insurance should have to stand there and watch their house burn down unless their neighbors are generous enough to come running over with buckets and hoses.

Not at all, fire departments are funded, or not, locally. Do you want the federal government to be in charge of all local governance/services as well?

[Gregg]

And by your reasoning the person who was behind on their fire department insurance...

Would that be taxes?

[creaker]

Would that be taxes?

Actually around 1787 firefighting wasn't a public affair - it was the realm of private insurance companies.

[Gregg]

Actually around 1787 firefighting wasn't a public affair - it was the realm of private insurance companies.

Interesting. I did not know that.

[Alan]

Actually around 1787 firefighting wasn't a public affair - it was the realm of private insurance companies.

That's not entirely accurate. Private fire brigades abounded, although it was sometimes a risky affair responding to a structure fire as only the first brigade on the scene was paid by insurance companies.
The first public fire department was founded in what is now New York in 1648.