Thanks for the comment. I think I understand your reasoning, but I don’t really think that what I am saying is exactly orthodoxy. It has, in fact, been way out of fashion for decades. The whole point of the article is that the closer we approach the present orthodoxy of total government control of health care, the less secure and the less healthy Americans will be.

I challenge you to name one area of health care, or any market for that matter, that is not grossly distorted by thousands of pages of regulation and billions of dollars of government money with strings attached. There is none, and to blame free markets for the problems we have, when free markets don’t exist, is absurd.

You mention education. That, like health care, is a miserable failure only because it is a government monopoly. Yet people still want more government in education. It is beyond belief to me.

Central planning has been proven so detrimental to the health of a nation’s economy and people so many times, and in all sorts of configurations, that it amazes me that people can still seriously believe that government can solve all of the problems. From the manipulation of interest and money that caused the current crisis to the political football that used to be called science, to foreign policy that deliberately creates enemies, our government has not made us more secure. It has weakened us and left us exposed.

I would agree with you that there is some very limited role for government. My view of limited seems to be very different than your view, however. We do need healthy citizens, but that is not, under any circumstances, government’s job. Hitler had an intense interest in making healthy Germans. That analogy is not far off the mark with many of the dangerous things that have been happening in our government and economy. There is a correlation between economic freedom and the health of citizens. There is no correlation between bureaucracy and health.

I would reverse the question to you. Are you so orthodox, in expecting government to solve all problems, that you are willing to sacrifice the security and safety of Americans?

Private schools are in general considered as better than public schools.

Why?

My guess is simply because the consumer– in this case parents that can afford private schools —can take their business elsewhere if they are not happy with the product or results. The competition is the discovery process that tells us which method is best, with consumer choice as judge.

Healthcare will improve and be less expensive if there is more consumer choice. If that is called a free market in healthcare, I’m all in favor of it.

But just like in our economy everything but Free Markets have been tried yet it will likely take the blame, again.

Your argument is valid if you assume that health is not synonymous with the physical and economic security of the country.

Your same arguments could be applied to education and the military as well. There is a limit to markets. I believe government should be small and only address those issues that are critical to the survival of the republic. I think health is one of those critical services. It should be centralized and it should be removed from the markets as a system.

We need healthy citizens to drive production, to avoid epidemics and bring down the costs that come from chronic illness left untreated. We can maintain our HMO like system AND deliver it to all Americans. Are you so tied to your orthodoxy that you are will to put the safety of Americans at risk?