tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5640358.post7279742884040493857..comments2023-10-31T06:25:46.016-04:00Comments on SLANTblog: Socialism as a red herringF.T. Reahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02042465274190082050noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5640358.post-81206289092843973442009-10-05T17:13:37.660-04:002009-10-05T17:13:37.660-04:00FT - It's true we currently live with many soc...FT - It's true we currently live with many socialistic services, such as the post office, police, public schools ,etc; however, unlike a purely socialistic state, these services work in tandem or in competition with similar private enterprises. For example the PO also competes with FedEx & UPS; in addition to public schools we have private school options. They are not sole providers, which would tag them as purely socialistic if they served alone, with no private competition. The problem with adding government-provided health insurance as a public or "socialist" option is that as written, this public service would not fairly compete with the private services. The public health service is tagged as a compulsory fallback in the event someone wishes to change or is dropped from current private coverage, but private health care coverage is not a fallback from the government service - it is a 1-way street with an unfair advantage only, which over time slowly chips away and eliminates the private services. Medicare is a good example of a pure socialistic service as it has no competition in the private sector - but it is incurring horrific debt. We could expect similar debt from a socialistic health insurance option also, since rates would have to be set regardless of health.<br />It seems to me, though, that in this case it is the government that is assuming the public cannot think or make health insurance decisions for themselves. more so than the media.Dale Brumfieldhttp://www.newsfromdoswell.comnoreply@blogger.com