| outlawauron said: Well, privatization generally means more competition, which leads to a host of outcomes. In other industries where private vs public compete, there is a very observable gap in quality of service to the point where the government service is a bit of joke. Nice to know that some people believe that the government is more altruistic than I. I'm not that optimistic. |
Its not about goverment being altruistic or not, its about money. If goverment is responsible for the expences of health care, then it should have the motive to keeping people as healthy as possible, because that costs them less. Of course its never that simple, but things can change and health care can be handled well or not, regardles of whether its completely by goverment or by private sector or a mix of both.
Many doctors, nurses etc want to save lives, want to cure people, want to make people more healthy and now that is mostly harnessed for making money, but who says it has to be like that? Nothing would have really changed if all people thought that things are impossible. Many would have thought that women getting the right to vote etc. and Trump becoming the precident, were impossible and would never happen, but they did happen and so did countless of other things that were viewed to be impossible by many. If goverment sees that its best interest is have healthy citizens and if that can be combined with the fact that many people in health care do want to help people, then maybe something good will happen.
Problem with making money from health care, is that its hard to make money from healthy people and because of that there is little motive to make people healthy in the long run. Thats why I think that it should be changed and be made into something thats not about profits, but instead about not losing money (or ideally just about helping people with health things). And about the competition, there can still be competition even if its wholly handled by the goverment, but I guess I didn´t need to say that as its given.
