Can you name one government sponsored program that has been managed efficiently?

Question

Medicare? No.
Welfare? No.
Social Security? No.

So why do some people trust and want the government to manage their health care?

Answer 1

During my life time, I have lived in more than 20 States and have traveled through most of the others several times; I have relatives living all over the country as well as in other countries.

I went through public school, college, and graduate school and all sorts of jobs.

The closest to efficient that I am aware of is the U.S. Army.
So, no, I do not know of even one single Government program that is run efficiently.
When I was in highschool (back before the Liberals controlled all the Media) they claimed that for every $1.00 received from the Government, it took $10.00 (10% efficiency rating). None of them come close to that now.
If I had put all the money into a plain savings account in a bank that I paid into Social Security (and Medicare/Medicaid, which they did not have back when) and left it in the bank to compile interest, I would have more than a $1,000,000 in savings; at 5% I could draw off $50,000 a year (considerably more than my current income) and when I die, my wife and sons could continue drawing that $50,000. That is almost 5 times what I receive from Social Security...But, hey, the American public does not want a "private" social security system, so I must suffer for their mistakes!
The same would happened with a Government-managed health care plan. Which is why so many Europeans and Canadians come to the States for serious medical care.
People are (for the most part) incapable of thinking or reasoning; they believe what the Media tells them. Doctor/nurse/phamacists errors/mistakes/neglect/carelessness are the Number 1, Number 2, and Number 3 causes of death in the U.S. of A. today (SOURCE: CBS News).
They want to have everything put into the computer, to save time and mistakes. Haven't you ever heard of people who had an operation and the doctor "closed" (sewed them up) with surgical instruments still inside? Or amputated the wrong arm/let/testicle/breast? It is virtually impossible to correct medical records errors now; when they are all in the computer system, no one will ever again know what is in their records nor will they have any chance to refute the errors or to make corrections.
Since your employment/chance of attending college/chance of getting a car/home loan depends in part on your medical record, who in their collective right mind would want all the woes of Govenment mandated health care? I certainly don't, but I still have my faculties.

I found your question interesting, so I starred it. Keep trying to get people to think! For a lot of them, it would be a first time experience.

Answer 2

I would suggest humbly that our troops do a damn fine job.

Also the recent advances in cancer research, were often funded by the NIH. The fact that certain cancers lead to less fatality now, than they did 30 years ago, is probably a good thing don't you think?

While I don't deny governments are ripe with bureaucracy and inefficiency, and that I believe governments are dangerous and need to be watched, that doesn't always mean private enterprise is more efficient. Bureaucracies exist in business too, and many companies are inefficient, or dishonest, on a scale that is comparable to government programs. The evidence of this is well documented.

As for health care, the issue is complicated. I am not in favor of adopting a Canadian system. Not only is the Canadian system flawed, these flaws would be even worse when transferred to a country with 10 times the population base, and with a much larger expanse of urban sprawl. There are things to admire about the Canadian system, but it is not the perfect model for the US.

What I think I advocate now, is the current system, but with much greater restrictions and enforcement of the insurance companies. There needs to be some "insurance" on the "insurance". Similar to how governments back up back and insure accounts, in case a private bank collapses, the government must ensure that private health care companies deliver a certain level of service in their policies.

This is not that outrageous an idea. We already have safety regulations in the construction of airplanes and automobiles that for the most part work, and let free enterprise flourish. Why not hold insurance companies accountable with a series of fair regulations? Right now, certain HMO's are avoiding payouts on their policies, with very few mechanisms for the private citizen to combat those decisions.

The fact is, in some cases, people who develop terminal illnesses are being denied payment on their policies. You have better mechanisms to dispute a payout on your car insurance, than you do your health insurance. This would allow the system to stay private, but provide better rights for those who are paying for insurance.

Answer 3

Because of double digit % increases on an annual basis. Why not try it. Public health is a huge issue for a country and it deserves at least a try as a public run health care. Transportation is, do you want all privately run roads, how about a private army, and why not pay someone to hire a president, and when you get in trouble why not sit in front of a judge run by a subsidiary of Wal-Mart? That sounds ridiculous I know, so why is an issue as import to a society as health care left to the market. The market works great at making money, but health care should not be about making money. It is a nice bonous that it does, but that should not be its main drive.

Answer 4

Not even prisons. The government has never done anything correctly. Even the Post Office had to be removed from government control to make it work. The federal government and state governments are efficiently crooked.

Answer 5

I do not know if this reflects on efficient management, but the Government Printing Office makes a profit.

Answer 6

Seeing as you already think you know the answer to your question and obviously intend to select someone with a different version of the answer you gave yourself in your details as best, why don't you consider this.
You listed 3 social programs. Have you even thought about the millions of dollars of overpayment in tax dollars that are going to Halliburton? They're a CONTRACTOR and they're charging us for jobs they didn't even do. Not to mention the whole no-bid contrat thing, which probably wasted some money.
Do you favor subsidies?
Talk about inefficient.

Answer 7

Yeah. The Donald Trump Presidential Rally.

Answer 8

The postal system is actually pretty good. The Manhattan Project was a success.

But I get your point - government involvment typically means failure, or success at VAST expense.

Answer 9

Medicare is the most efficiently run government program. However, they don't reimburse heatlh care providers enough. It's not uncommon for them to reimburse below true cost.

Answer 10

Only those that have been privatized.

We need a great deal more privatization. The reasons not to nationalize healthcare are painfully obvious. Let's hope people use their heads.