Saturday, March 03, 2007


Today is one of those days where I'm annoyed enough with the world to write about current events.

Drudge has a link to a CBS News/NYT poll that states the majority of those polled think the government should be more involved in the healthcare system.

This is the same government that is having
issues running its own flagship Army hospital.

Please understand that, while I have a lot of problems with the Bush administration, my criticism of the Walter Reed issues and of government-run healthcare in general have nothing to do with those objections. I just wonder when the
last time was that anyone expected the government to run a public service efficiently.

It seems to be that most people should be concerned about any kind of government-run healthcare system. Isn't the whole premise of the pro-choice movement based upon keeping government out of women's bodies? Of course, there is also the
ruckus about whether state and/or local governments should require school-age girls to take the HPV-vaccine. I guess feelings about government involvement in healthcare decisions comes down to what side of Debate X a person wants to take on a given day.

But, really, do you want anyone in Washington involved in your day-to-day healthcare decisions? Do you want them knowing, or caring, that you have a runny nose, a hurty tummy, an achy ear? How about an itchy rash on your private places? Feelings of depression? Chest pains? Cancer?

How involved should the government be in your medical issues? And do you trust them to treat you properly, efficiently, and with care or compassion?

And, as one last point, when was the last time the government spent less money on a program than the private sector?

Count me as highly skeptical if this idea should ever move forward.

No comments: