Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Some rules, of course, if the aim is universal health care. That doesn't
> make the government the provider or administrator of the service.
If all the money has to go through the government, it is inevitable that a large
and complicated set of rules will be created, modified, amended, and grown
to frightening degree.
These rules will constrain both the suppliers and the consumers, and will
effectively result in inefficient government control of health care. It will
create
a system devoid of the give and take of consumers shopping around trying
to find the best supplier for what they need at the best price, and suppliers
competing and innovating to provide the consumers what they need. Instead
the government will oversee some bloated, generalized menu of products
that does not meet the needs of many consumers and offers little incentive
for the suppliers to innovate to meet the needs of the consumers. This is what
happens when the government gets involved involved in a complicated system.
There is no way for the government to replace the specific knowledge and time
of millions of consumers and thousands of suppliers individually interacting in
order to continuously evolve a system that meets the needs of all the players.
> Government can set rules without taking operational control of an industry.
It could happen. So could a meteor taking out New York on Halloween.
I'm not holding my breath.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
