To: Lane3 who wrote (131626 ) 2/26/2010 4:33:23 PM From: JohnM Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541326 What about when in a democracy the majority of the voters are dependent upon that government monopoly to provide health care out of tax money? Ah, woe is us since we are all already in that sorry state. All of us get social security and medicare, when eligible. Classic dependent state or anticipatory dependent state. I've noticed lately how unwilling voters are to be critical of the parties in power. Yep. Well, more seriously, that theory won't track. Evidence does tell out.We're not even just talking about centralizing that regulation at the federal level but federal command and control of a good chunk of the economy. That's something else entirely. I refer you to my previous point. We already do this for more than a few goods. It's important to contrast your "command and control" language with the health care system and the health care insurance industry, all of which would continue to be market based. And, a bit more evidence. I don't see how heavily regulated, private health insurance has harmed the French, the Germans, or the Swiss. No don't there are more cases. The concept of regulation is a government rein on the private sector in the interests of the public, it's customers. If there's no private sector, then the whole notion of regulation is rather silly. The regulation paradigm doesn't fit. What you have is more of an internal policy and procedures paradigm than a regulatory one. To the extent that you have a private sector, it's governed more in the contractor paradigm than the regulatory paradigm. That's a whole different world. Are there aren't Econ and Poli Sci books that deal with that? Definitely lost on this one. Both the health industry and the healthcare insurance industry remain private but regulated. I fail to see the fit. You seem to think that this rather weak form of government regulation is the same as the British form of healthcare. It's not; and not even close.