HealthCareUS

With the exception of highly infectious diseases the government has no right to force citizens to pay for, render to, keep records of, or in any other way interfer in free choice health care.

Of course, I disagree with you, so I'd like to explore how far you feel the Government should not interfere with the Medical System. (My general idea is that unless one is willing to reduce the government's involvement a lot, then the HealthCareUS system is a reasonable way to improve what we have now satisfy our Humane and Economic objectives)

So should the Government try to withdraw, as rapidly as reasonable from

1) The Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP system?

2) Requiring ER's to treat all who "need" care?

3) Permitting the AMA, etc. to require licensing medical care givers?

4) Permitting states to set standards for health insurance?

5) Setting standards for levels of health insurance, e.g. Specs?

6) Testing drugs and determining their Safety and Effectiveness? (FDA)

7) Preventing people from purchasing their drugs over the Internet from other countries?

8) Preventing people from purchasing and using Illegal, Abortion, or Euthanasia drugs?

9) Protecting the patents of Drug companies?

10) Requiring us to give Taxable income credit to the corporations and perhaps individuals who have medical expenses or insurance.

11) Controlling the Malpractice lawsuits and suits against Drug companies that satisfy the Government regulations for their drug testing

I'm sure that there are other ways that the State controls, subsidizes, etc. the medical system, Please add your own set that I have missed, and it seems to me that we both probably agree the current, impure, system has major problems. The way I look at it, you see BASIC Medical care as a normal Free Enterprise product which should not be control or paid for by others, where as I see it as a Social Good that should be regulated, paid for, and required to be transparent by the society.

“1) The Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP system?” Medicare is fine. Drop Medicaid and SCHIP.

“2) Requiring ER's to treat all who "need" care?” Provide emergency services to all.

“3) Permitting the AMA, etc. to require licensing medical care givers?” Doctors should be licensed.

“4) Permitting states to set standards for health insurance?” No.

“5) Setting standards for levels of health insurance, e.g. Specs?” No.

“6) Testing drugs and determining their Safety and Effectiveness? (FDA)” Yes.

“7) Preventing people from purchasing their drugs over the Internet from other countries?” No.

“8) Preventing people from purchasing and using Illegal, Abortion, or Euthanasia drugs?” Prevent people from purchasing illegal drugs.

“9) Protecting the patents of Drug companies?” Yes.

“10) Requiring us to give Taxable income credit to the corporations and perhaps individuals who have medical expenses or insurance.” Medical expenses should be deductible.

11) Controlling the Malpractice lawsuits and suits against Drug companies that satisfy the Government regulations for their drug testing” People are litigious. Suits need to be capped at actual damages. A lawsuit must never be a lottery winning.

“I'm sure that there are other ways that the State controls, subsidizes, etc. medical expensesthe medical system, Please add your own set……….”

Government has no right to force you to purchase health insurance.

Government has no right to interfere in your choice of doctors.

THANKS... I expected you would be more "libertarian".

Re: your "Government has no right...", I'd wonder if it would be somewhat more acceptable if:

You would not have to purchase health insurance if you don't get subsidized health care, Emergency Rooms, Bankruptcy, Cost transferring, etc.. As I don't think America is willing to prevent the poorer uninsured to be left untreated, we are just breaking even in insuring them. and perhaps benefiting if their preventative treatment saves money in the long run. If one is rich enough so that they could cover all insured costs, then, of course, it seems reasonable that they would not have to purchase insurance, and could get their voucher back.

You can choose any Doctor, but an insurance company that prevents you from choosing a competent Doctor or getting a base level of treatment is not a "HealthCareUS insurance provider", and thus will not get the voucher.

“your "Government has no right...", I'd wonder if it would be somewhat more acceptable if: You would not have to purchase health insurance if you don't get subsidized health care, Emergency Rooms, Bankruptcy, Cost transferring, etc..”
Yes, that is acceptable.

“As I don't think America is willing to prevent the poorer uninsured to be left untreated…..” There are low priced clinics the poor can use. There are low priced insurance policies for the poor. All people except disabled must provide for themselves.

“we are just breaking even in insuring them.”
We will go broke if the taxpayer tries to insure them.

“and perhaps benefiting if their preventative treatment saves money in the long run.” Their insurance can insist they have preventative treatment.

The government has no right to pick your pocket so they can put the money in someone else’s pocket.

The government is the least efficient entity.

For example, in private industry the more of a product you purchase, the lower cost per unit it is.

In government, as you can tell VIA taxes, if you live in a rural area your taxes are reasonable.

However when more people move in and pay taxes you would think the taxes would decrease per person.

However the reality is taxes per person are increased.

“If one is rich enough so that they could cover all insured costs, then, of course, it seems reasonable that they would not have to purchase insurance, and could get their voucher back.”
A government run (A.K.A. rationed) healthcare system would exacerbate the disparity between rich and poor.

The rich will go to another country to receive timely care the same way other people now stuck with government run healthcare in other countries come to America.

Government run healthcare causes fatal waits.