Yeah, I like policies that benefit me over ones that don't, typically.
> Government involvement is what led to both being so messy.
Well considering one of the two things that "both" signifies is the tax code... well, yes? More to the substance, that such systems under other states are, in both cases, significantly less messy leads me to believe "it's messy" does not follow simply from "government was involved", such that I would believe "get government out" is a necessary step in fixing either (again, one's the tax code, so...)
> I don't trust other people to run my life, be they union bureaucrats or federal ones, or even my fellow citizens.
Corporations on the same list, surely? Unless you're lumping those in with the government, which makes sense.
> Leaving aside my concerns about the growth of federal government, why do you want everyone to use your government system instead of just offering it as an option? What business of yours is it if others choose to stay private?
I don't really care what the new system looks like as long as I don't have to waste any more time or money enjoying the "benefits" of my "freedom" of "choice" under our current system. Any system I'm aware of from any other OECD state would be anywhere from somewhat to way better, from that perspective. Given those are proven in the real world I'd say just pick one of those. I'm pretty sure a few (e.g. Switzerland) do retain private insurance. All (AFAIK) employ price controls, strict pro-citizen rules about how insurance companies have to operate, and something like a "public option" so as long as those elements are present it's probably fine. Anything else is likely to be experimental or otherwise unproven so I'd rather avoid it, given a wealth of demonstrably-fine systems to choose among.
I do think we should "get government out of the tax code" to a serious extent in that it shouldn't be in the business of taxing income, payroll, capital gains, etc. Calculate expenses / adult population and send each adult a bill for that number. This would be about $15k/adult as of last year which will sting, but will quickly make people realize how much the free stuff they've been taking from others costs.
> Corporations on the same list, surely? Unless you're lumping those in with the government, which makes sense.
Yes, there is a deplorable amount of crony capitalism and regulatory recapture. Part of the reason why we need to starve the federal government: it will always be abused by the most powerful. I do, however, trust a market with a thousand participants motivated by profit more than a government that has changing motives every few years, or depending on what the media prints.
> I don't really care what the new system looks like as long as I don't have to waste any more time or money enjoying the "benefits" of my "freedom" of "choice" under our current system.
Okay, pay a medical concierge firm to handle the paperwork for you. I don't care what you do or how you do it so long as you don't tell me what to do and don't make me pay for your choices.
The NHS just changed rules to allow refusal of "non-emergency" care to people who meet one of their non-PC criteria. This after people saying that it's a "human right".
Yeah, I like policies that benefit me over ones that don't, typically.
> Government involvement is what led to both being so messy.
Well considering one of the two things that "both" signifies is the tax code... well, yes? More to the substance, that such systems under other states are, in both cases, significantly less messy leads me to believe "it's messy" does not follow simply from "government was involved", such that I would believe "get government out" is a necessary step in fixing either (again, one's the tax code, so...)
> I don't trust other people to run my life, be they union bureaucrats or federal ones, or even my fellow citizens.
Corporations on the same list, surely? Unless you're lumping those in with the government, which makes sense.
> Leaving aside my concerns about the growth of federal government, why do you want everyone to use your government system instead of just offering it as an option? What business of yours is it if others choose to stay private?
I don't really care what the new system looks like as long as I don't have to waste any more time or money enjoying the "benefits" of my "freedom" of "choice" under our current system. Any system I'm aware of from any other OECD state would be anywhere from somewhat to way better, from that perspective. Given those are proven in the real world I'd say just pick one of those. I'm pretty sure a few (e.g. Switzerland) do retain private insurance. All (AFAIK) employ price controls, strict pro-citizen rules about how insurance companies have to operate, and something like a "public option" so as long as those elements are present it's probably fine. Anything else is likely to be experimental or otherwise unproven so I'd rather avoid it, given a wealth of demonstrably-fine systems to choose among.