From: Tony Williams 

Dave Ings wrote:
> Just to throw some fuel on the fire :-) I also think there is an important
> distinction often lost in these debates: the provision of the service by
> government does not necessarily imply the service has to be delivered by
> government employees, i.e. it can often be reasonably outsourced to a
> private firm.

True. I think most people are more concerned with availability of services
than ideological niceties. A big advantage of letting the government handle
the details is that you pay one bill automatically and it's all taken care
of. No worries about finding a doctor who's part of your insurance plan's
network (rinse and repeat for dentist, optician, pharmacy). No saving up
receipts, getting proof of coverage and claiming back tax with whatever
weird set-aside plan you're using.

The quality of care is fine - it's the mind-numbing bureacracy surrounding
the financial aspects which is a real nuisance, and the last thing you need
when you're sick.

> I find left of center folks tend to equate the two thoughts, and government
> union leaders certainly do.

The usual worry is that a private company will cut corners to reduce costs
and increase profit, whereas a state run service doesn't have fat-cat
directors and shareholders to worry about and can concentrate on providing
a good service. I consider that a red herring because it doesn't have to be
the case with proper enforcement of standards.

--
Tony

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5