We already have a social system, and it is FAIL
Medicare and Medicaid are social programs, administrated by the government. They are also billions of dollars in debt. More than a few medical providers have been forced into bankruptcy because of unpaid Medic* obligations. Oh, and you cannot sue the government, hence you cannot sue Medic* to compel treatment or resolve a grievance.
Doctors and hospitals also have high service charges because of a tort system which allows such high awards for meritless malpractice claims which get settled out of court for obscene and often undisclosed amounts just to make the problems go away as the cost of settlement is still often less than the cost of trial, win or lose. That in turn raises the requirements and costs for malpractice insurance. Unabated fraud to the tune of $11 billion per year also appears to be an issue.
The "reforms" being pushed by the current administration are predicated on lies and misinformation. Forget the fact that the entire debate makes it sound like every single American is in desperate need of medical care, which is wholly untrue.
There are not 47 million uninsured Americans. There are ways around the pre-existing conditions issue, which is already limited by 1997's HIPAA. We get told many times that the public option will not eliminate private insurance in favor of a single-payer system against which you have no recourse, and yet in his own words Obama states that he wants a single-payer system and it would take 15 to 20 years. We are told this is not a Trojan horse, and indeed it is not: it is a poison pill.
The public option is a misnomer. This "option" is provided as an alternative to "approved" health care programs. Government sets the standards and controls the competition. If the health insurance you have now does not meet the standards, and therefore not approved, you can keep it but you will also pay a 2.5% penalty against your gross adjusted income in your taxes (ignoring the fact that punitive taxes are starkly against what our Founders ever wanted.) Yes, you can keep your current insurance, as Obama has repeatedly assured us, but if it is unapproved then you will surrender more of the money you earn. And that is only until so many people drop your carrier that it shuts down.
Obama makes these two contradictory statements:
Transcript: Obama, AARP Hold Health Care Town Hall | LiveWire
"My interest is not in getting between you and your doctor, although keep in mind right now, insurance companies are often getting between you and your doctor." (n.b. My insurance has NEVER come between my doctor and I.)
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated) :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience
"...we can let doctors know, and maybe your mom know, that, you know what? This isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer."
How do you reconcile these statements? So a government committee will tell you and your doctor, "no, no, just take pain pills... it will be over soon." Should we prepare for the introduction of the Administration of Sunset Health Affairs (a Sunset Czar, perhaps?) If you refuse to visit a doctor for end-of-life counseling -- and at what age do you do this, anyway? -- do they send the Sunset Squad after you?
Perhaps if government-run health care was not already an abysmal failure -- Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Affairs, etc. -- we might have more faith in a program.
But all of that aside, let us just consider one thing: these so-called representatives who purport to be working for us, who have been given power BY the People and not OVER the People, are there to listen to us, and to pay attention to our bidding. When an agenda has mass support, disproportionate to the dissent, the support is taken at face value with little thought given to special interests and radical groups. But when an agenda has mass dissent, such as with Cap-and-Trade (Waxman-Markey,) when politicians proudly admit to the press that they blatantly ignored the "disproportionate" opposition, it stinks of force-fed agenda.
We as IT people understand the benefits of a distributed system: you distribute load, you distribute power, you distribute storage, you distribute backups, and so forth. How can we happily accept that a single-point system will not fail? In a distributed system we expect rotating outages of a certain percentage, and we focus our efforts on the specific area; the rest continues to operate.
Which is why social health care systems in states like Oregon can be a mess, while my private health care in Florida, for which I pay out of my own pocket, works just fine. I can see my doctor when necessary; I can see a specialist when necessary; I can get an MRI when necessary; all within days, not months. I even get discounts on health programs like gym memberships, and reimbursement up to $150 per year on such programs.
Paris, to be continued...