If the government is paying for it, then, ultimately, Congress is in charge.
Not if we, the people specifically set it up otherwise.
See, it used to be that lawmakers wrote laws themselves, based on ideas from people. I know that may seem odd, since we're living in an age where private for-profit insurance companies (and the lobbyists who work for them) write the laws, but it doesn't have to be that way.
It just takes responsibility and initiative from we, the people.
I know, I know, that's the fly in the ointment....but we liberals still hold out for that dream. Call us starry-eyed optimists.
It's probably not a good idea to
invoke the military when it comes to defending the efficiency of a government program.
When did I say it was efficient? I only said they always had the money for what they wanted.
You lost me when you started conflating health insurance and health care, but, a lot of people make that mistake.
I didn't conflate them. Health insurance carriers pay for the health care their subscribers receive. Well, most of it, anyway. The difference between what they pay out for health care costs and what they take in from premiums paid for by subscribers is called profit. Roughly
billions a year over the entire private for-profit insurance industry.
Of course, how many billions are we talking about? Interestingly enough,
Blue Cross, made $643 million in profit in 2013. By comparison, the US government lost $535 million when Solyndra defaulted. Blue Cross is one of the largest health insurance companies. Solyndra was a relative drop in the bucket of federal spending.
Um, not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing a private for-profit company's profits with the federal government, which isn't a profit-generating business.
But Congress still controls the purse strings, which means that ultimately Congress is in charge. As with our current health care system, a single payer system would not have an unlimited budget. Why do you keep ignoring this? There is still a limited budget for government health care.
Single payer wouldn't need an unlimited budget, just one that covers the health care costs for all Americans. Since we're spreading the risk over the entire populace, instead of just over a private for-profit insurance company's pool of subscribers, it would cost less in taxes for each individual than insurance premiums currently do, since the billions of dollars a year private for-profit insurance companies make wouldn't be coming out of the overall cost of health care.
No, but, I don't advocate more government regulation for a system that government regulation played a major part in creating.
You must have missed the part where I suggested doctors and medical administrators would oversee medical care, not the government. Check it again.
You mean, other then giving those pesky politicians the power to control the entire medical system, that is?
Which is why I suggested a Constitutional amendment to preclude that. I feel that would be a necessary part of any single payer plan, for precisely the reasons you fear.
Read that again. You're saying that you want a single payer medical system that is funded by the government, [you know, those politicians in Congress] but you don't want the system to be in the hands of politicians [who happen to make up Congress].
Yup.
Why not? We, the people are the ones who give government its power. We've allowed the private for-profit insurance industry and it's lobbyists to write the laws up to now, it's time we took the power back and kept it where it belongs.
It's a very liberal idea, I know, that the government is an arm of the people, and serves them. Unlike the conservative ideal, where corporations and moneyed interests control the government.
The latter, I feel, is what brought us to where we are now. But if we go back to some good old fashioned liberal ideas, maybe we can fix things and make government responsible to those from whom it derives its power: the consent of the governed.
-- A2SG, not just those with the most cash to contribute to campaign funds.....