Better for all, Capitalism or Socialism?

[SamuelRSmith]

Oh no, I understand his point perfectly.

And I agree, for things like the space programme, the contracting system works. Hell, in my first post in this thread I said that that would be how I would run some of the Government programmes.

However, I do not think it is an effective model for welfare and healthcare.

Let me list why I don't think it's a good model, you can then go through with a toothpick and tell me why I'm wrong:

- These will still be firms running for profits, adding unnecessary costs to healthcare.

- Providing high quality health care isn't all about getting things done cheaply.

- It could lead to a "postcode lottery" - where the quality of healthcare you receive will depend largely where you live. Someone being treated in a Government-paid for hospital in Nevada would be entitled to different things to a Government-paid for hospital in Utah, for example.

- This could lead to a reduction in certain freedoms. Under the NHS you can go to any hospital, see any doctor, use any clinic you want. Under this system, a 17-20yo male in California might only be able to go to hospitals that the firm operates in.

- Increased bureaucracy. In order for the firm to receive funds from the Government, they'd need to show proof of treatment, this could mean that the patient (or, in this case, the "customer" in the eyes of the firm) would have to sign paperwork to state that they did indeed get treatment, and other checks would have to go in place.

- If firm A wins a contract but they show that they are incompetent at running whatever they were contracted to do, the Government would have to wait until contracts out, or payoff the firm to let them cease the contract early.