I don't favour bureaucrats making health-care decisions for citizens; I favour doctors making those decisions. I favour doctors who don't have to spend their valuable time fighting with private insurance companies motivated by the need to make a profit. Why do you think US healthcare is twice as expensive and not nearly so effective in providing care as anywhere else in the developed world?

I keep trying to drill this into your head and finally it comes out of your own mouth. So if you favor the bold sentence above why do you oppose Tort reform that the republicans wanted in the health care bill but was rejected by the Democrats? Perhaps you understand that competition can also lower costs. The republicans want to increase competition between insurance companies by allowing citizens to shop and purchase their health insurance accross state lines. The democrats have blocked this as well from the health care bill. Why is it that the party that is supposably so concerned about lowering our health care costs rejects two of the largest reasons that costs are high? Why can't people shop accross state lines for their insurance now you ask? Well because government stepped in and passed laws that don't allow it. The government beaurocrats were most likely rewarded hansomly for their votes to create such laws that benefit Insurance companies in their states. There are ways to lower costs by getting government out of the way and letting the free market system work.

I favour doctors running independent practices who spend their time solving patients problems and then simply billing their provincial government according to that provinces agreed schedule of costs - and everyone is covered!

Yes, but what happens when the doctor thinks the patient needs a treatment that the government says they will not pay for. What happens then?

The free market system works and the private sector can always do it for less, faster and better for the most part. I agree that many things should be privatized that are now government controlled. Look at the money the taxpayers pump into public schooling. We spend more per student than any other nation in the world yet our students in the public schools are dropping out or performing poorly. Private schools will always be able to do a better job for less money. Government should only be involved when families can't afford to pay for private schools and that funding would be by taxes.

I'm surprised that there isn't more call here to do away with other government services. Fire-fighting for a profit and only save burning houses of those who can afford to pay the firefighters. Same for police. How about the armed forces? Do away with them and have private militias.

You bring up a great point what about those poor families that can't afford fire insurance and lose their homes after a fire. Fire insurance should be a right also don't you think. Perhaps your liberal friends in government will push this down our throats next. Government sponsored fire insurance.

As far as police are concerned you must live in the city where you have police. We have been told by the county sherrif tht we need to fend off an intruder for 45 minutes before they can arrive. Perhaps a private community based militia would serve some of our citizens better. Perhaps if laws were tougher their would be less crime and it would lower police costs.

"...I know you are or were a government employee so this may explain your support of big government as you have been sucking off the hard work of your fellow countrymen via tax revenues for some time."

So, you know, do you? For your information, I ran my own successful independent design consultancy for twenty nine years, at one point providing gainful employment for four other individuals. I'm all for free enterprise. When it's appropriate.

P.S.

If you didn't want people to know that you once worked for the government you shouldn't have posted it on a public forum. But it does explain a lot of you pro big government views.

Steve