Actually, I was a consultant in the Defense sector, so I'm familiar with the notion of complex issues and have done my share of extensive studies.
Oh, wonderful. I hope you weren't the one responsible for $600.00 toilet seats, or the $$$ followup studies about whether the costs were excessive.<g>
I take greatest issue with your suggestion that those ill-informed people would be better informed if only the programs they don't know about were universal and included well-informed people too: I've asked both of them what I thought was a simple and obvious question. How would the women know that such programs exist? With a thoughfull pause, both said there really is no way for them [largely] to know about the programs. One advantage of universal health care is everyone knows that they have health care.
If we offered free food to people who need it, would that eliminate hunger? Well, we do, through all sorts of government and volunteer programs. But it hasn't. If we nationalize the farmers and entire agricultural and food industry, and offer free food to the entire population, regardless of need, will that solve the hunger problem? No. Production will fall and we will all starve (check out N. Korea, China, the USSR, and every other country that's tried it). Your same argument has been tried and proven not to work.
I would argue that it's the delivery mechanism that's to blame -- not the lack of universal health coverage. Your friend and niece would probably say the same thing, if they know what they're talking about.
A problem within many of those do-good industries is that if they were to fix the problem for good, they put themselves out of business. Their own self interest demands that they provide "assistance" without a real solution, thereby maintaining their "clients" in a perpetual state of need. |
