dave1949
Super Star Member
So far, we have had a warm winter here in Maine. 
I think it is important to keep in mind that generally, gov't regulation results from a majority of people supporting an idea or shared goal. Regulations are not disembodied mandates from 'the gov't'. Sometimes the debate takes a long time to reach concensus on solutions that are favored by a majority. That's certainly true with health care issues if you look at the history of attempts to improve it.
I think we may have taken a wrong turn when employers began to make health care insurance part of compensation. That created a pool of money that attracted a lot of shenanigans that are playing out now.
For health care, the majority of people do think there is room for improvement I would guess. The cost, availability, and quality can all stand improvement. I don't think it is pointless to compare the US to other countries in this regard. That is like saying we shouldn't 'grade' our own efforts to continue to be a 1st World country.
One of the strengths of the US has always been the ability to compromise around a solution that is seen by the majority to be equitable. We do ourselves a disservice by advocating adherence to strict free market principles - no matter what. That isn't the way the country works now and never has been. What has always worked is compromising a bit on ideals for a better outcome. It's fine to hold to the ideal that the more advantage we give to free market forces, the better off we will be. It's not true that totally unfettered free markets will always solve or prevent problems. Our own history demostrates that.
Compromise is pretty much the opposite of what took place early on in communist countries, the perfection of an ideal was everything to them and it cost them dearly.
Dave.
I think it is important to keep in mind that generally, gov't regulation results from a majority of people supporting an idea or shared goal. Regulations are not disembodied mandates from 'the gov't'. Sometimes the debate takes a long time to reach concensus on solutions that are favored by a majority. That's certainly true with health care issues if you look at the history of attempts to improve it.
I think we may have taken a wrong turn when employers began to make health care insurance part of compensation. That created a pool of money that attracted a lot of shenanigans that are playing out now.
For health care, the majority of people do think there is room for improvement I would guess. The cost, availability, and quality can all stand improvement. I don't think it is pointless to compare the US to other countries in this regard. That is like saying we shouldn't 'grade' our own efforts to continue to be a 1st World country.
One of the strengths of the US has always been the ability to compromise around a solution that is seen by the majority to be equitable. We do ourselves a disservice by advocating adherence to strict free market principles - no matter what. That isn't the way the country works now and never has been. What has always worked is compromising a bit on ideals for a better outcome. It's fine to hold to the ideal that the more advantage we give to free market forces, the better off we will be. It's not true that totally unfettered free markets will always solve or prevent problems. Our own history demostrates that.
Compromise is pretty much the opposite of what took place early on in communist countries, the perfection of an ideal was everything to them and it cost them dearly.
Dave.