SamuelRSmith said: 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.

Well it's like I stated above.  Well a system like the government would institute anyway (good insurance.)

There is no way to cut costs in Health insurance that would result in killing people.

These people don't do anything but pay bills and negotiate the prices for stuff with hospitals.

You just had this conversation like 10 posts up.  Why are you repeating it with me?

I haven't touched up on healthcare in this topic yet.

Are we talking health insurance companies, now?

Because health insurance companies can cut costs that kill people by refusing to pay for treatments on grounds of being "experimental", or refuse to treat people because they have another ailment.

I'd wager a dollar to doughnuts that if you make a claim on your health insurance, they'll search high and low for a way to not pay for it.

Socialism...

althoguh its so rarley (if ever?) done right so I dont have an example of a successful Socialist State but if everything is done properly it would be paradise.

Do you honestly believe the government will be any better? When you are asked to pay $200,000 to attempt to keep someone alive for 1 year with little/no expectations of being successful it is very difficult to justify the cost when you're on a limited budget.

^Yes, because I have proof: The NHS.

The NHS doesn't refuse anyone treatment no matter what ailments they have, and they will try everything possible to keep a patient alive for as long as possible.

EDIT: Actually, I'll just tell you a astory which proves my point:

My great uncle had throat cancer a couple of years ago. He was a smoker. Some health insurance companies would reject to pay for his treatment because he was a smoker. The NHS didn't. They performed the operation, and he recevied radiotherapy afterwards. During this time the NHS also tried to assist him in quitting smoking.

He did, for a while, give up smoking. However, after a few months he started smoking again - and he got throat cancer again. The hospital new that he had the cancer before, and they new that he had gone through anti-smoking stuff aswell. And yet did they refuse him treatment? No. They still operated on him, but it wasn't a success. They kept him in hospital for the last few weeks of his life - they offered him alternatives, but he rejected them, yet he was able to stay in the hospital - fed, rested and cleaned, until the day he died.

And so, yes, I truely believe that a Government run program would be better at a firm at cost cutting.

You should investigate Canada's "Universal" healthcare system, where so much remains uncovered by the government that most people have supplementary healthcare insurance

That's what we've been talking about the whole time right?

I mean government run hosptials in the US used to be some of the worst in the country until they found a few corspes just sitting around of people who died because the care was so bad.

Also... hiw could they weasel their way out of it when they've agreed to what they will do with the government?

And the UK Universal healthcare now supports any fringe, new and unproven treatment?

The UK government doesn't try and stop treatments to save money?

http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/content/view/670/69/

http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/en-gb/Campaigns/News/news_mentalhealthdenied_310309.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/11/health.medicineandhealth

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Shortage-of-NHS-funds-3A-Many-Couples-Denied-Infertility-Treatment-7061-1/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92916560

They wouldn't be able to cost cut.   They've signed an agreement with the government... they would have to follow the letter of the agreement.

Also... lots of doctors are actually for the stuff you are against.  One moment to find the link.