So where is that competition you mentioned. I do not remember NASA EVER saying "whoever does this first wins the money."

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.

They do that all the time actually.  Different companies bring them different designs, prices and practices and they study all the plans and prices and choose the winning bids.

It's how our military works too.

In contrast, I have a unique perspective on healthcare being that I believe the whole concept of healthcare is broken and the unsustainable growth in the cost (regardless of who delivers it) is a sign of that ... We keep spending more and more money trying to fix preventable illnesses without ever holding people accountable to maintain their own health.

- Are you sure the government is negotiating the best rates?  Also what is to stop non-profit orginzations from throwing their hats into the ring in the bidding process.

- Treatment would be all standard anyway so why would it matter.

- Why?  The government will ask "Who can do this for cheapest".  Not "What can you give me for this."

- See above.

- I don't see why.  I'm guessing you don't understand how private insurance works.

- It's better then the Alternative.  When the VA was deemed incompetant... and everyone KNEW it was incompetant the problem lasted for much longer then a contract would... until they made mistakes finally too big to avoid.

Besides this would hit the hospitals.  Not the People.

As an example. Say I have insurance.

I pay so much a month.

Then if i have to go to the doctor I get treated.

The doctor sends the bill to the insurance company first...

Then anything that isn't paid by them is sent to me.

He forgets that the amount you pay the company is proportional to your overall health. It raises exponentially the sicker you are or the more prone to problems you are.

Which it wouldn't be under a government bid system... making your statement irrelevent to the topic at hand.

Well, you did what I said you would.

And you know what my biggest problem with your rebuttals were: I honestly don't think what you're saying will be what will happen.

Sure, it's a cop-out argument, I know that, but I honestly think that what would happen in the real world would be much more similar to what I posted then what you did.

And I think this simply because over Government's have tried it before with different programmes. Our Government, for example, tried this system with the railways. The firms who won the bids then went on to cost-cut and do other things to keep it as cheap as possible to increase a) their profits, b) they're likelihood of contract renewal.

The result? Trains coming off the tracks. There were several train crashes causing death and pain. The Government had to go back to maintaining the railways themselves.

Or what about what happened with Bolivia? Where are a private firm won the rights to water treatment. Once they got the contract, they tripled the prices of the water, and no one could afford the stuff! Sure, it's slightly different, but it's still shows that the private sector cannot be trusted with services where people's lives are at stake.

And, no, I don't know what health insurance is like. I don't need to know, I'll never need health insurance in my lifetime.

And that isn't socialistic at all? Where does the money come from?