To: Peter Dierks who wrote (235776 ) 7/9/2007 11:23:28 AM From: epicure Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 "The system worked much better before the government started tinkering with it." Do you have evidence that the system worked better for a majority of people? Government intervention occurred in the 60's because of an appalling lack of health care for the elderly. Was it "better" before they could access health care? I have some evidence that it made things better, for the elderly: "In 1965, the elderly were the group most likely to be living in poverty--nearly one in three were poor (Figure 1). Today, the poverty rate for the elderly is similar to that of the age group 18-64--about 1 in 10 are poor. Children are now the group most likely to be living in poverty."findarticles.com heartacademy.org It seems to me that 1965, and the Medicare legislation, was a huge boon to the elderly and disabled. There is a problem with costs- but those costs could partly be contained by more government interference rather than less. Bureaucracy, to deal with insurance, has been responsible for a large part of the cost expansion in the system. With a single payer that administrative layer could be all but eliminated. There are some areas of life where capitalism isn't such a good thing, imo. I'm glad our fire department is "socialized", as are the police, and the military- these are vital societal services. I find health care to be very similar in primacy to a military- and I think that's why most countries have national health care. I would be happy to see your data on how our society was better off before the elderly had easy access to health care services. Show me whatever data you have.