The SBP Archives - Your less than frequent dose of SBP!

I was watching Fox news on Sunday (I never watch it, only tuned in because it was in high definition) where Hilary Clinton was getting interviewed by someone whose name escapes me (Brit Hume perhaps?). The topic was health care, and one of Clinton's agenda items when she runs for President next year is having universal health care for every US citizen.

Because Fox is owned by Conrad Black, we can't possibly have a program endorsed by a news station that helps the less fortunate. But since you can't say with a straight face that a 5 year-old shouldn't have the right to be seen by a doctor only because they don't have insurance, the host attacked Clinton by suggesting having a government-run program is doomed to fail.

Hilary went on to say that every person would have a choice of insurance carrier and would not be insured by the government per se. For example, they could go with Blue Cross if they prefer. She was trying to downplay that the government would actually run the day-to-day administration, and it would simply mandate how each person would become insured.

My point is: So what if the government is the sole insurance carrier?

I mean, why is automatically the government seen as bad? Why do Americans perceive the government at being inept in running such a social program?

Privatization is all around them, and it has resulted in unnecessary deaths and 47 million uninsured. Why do they think privatization is still the way things should be run?

I don't see the government as evil, or incompetent. It should work for the people, and when I see the many social programs offered in Canada to aid the less fortunate, I see how it can work.

Americans seem to have little interest in having not-for-profit agencies work for them. I just don't get it.