Firstly, it has been posited that a private Insurance company is only in it for the money, and therefore will not have your best interests at heart. I would like to point out that the if a private company is just in it for the money, then the gov't is just in it for the power! Frankly, I'd rather be broke from an Insurance company sucking down my pocket book and still be free, than to have cheap health care, some extra money in my pocket, but be a slave to the gov't. And then have the gov't tax that extra money in my pocket so then I'm still broke.
Secondly, Insurance Companies do not have a problem of Capitalism (which is implied by them only being in it for the money), if anything they have a problem of Socialism. They are tasked with distributing money pooled together by a group of people, and trying to make sure they have enough left to make it worth their while. If they couldn't, they'd be doing something else more productive with their time! So, why would gov't, who would essentially be doing the same job, distributing pooled money out to people, be any better? Just because they won't keep any extra for a profit? They still have to pay all the people to do the work, and have you seen the gov't union retirement / benefits plan? Not cheap. But hey, if you don't think your insurance company shouldn't be making a profit, then fire them! Get someone else, or start your own! You can't do that with the gov't. Actually, a bunch of people have already started their own non-profit co-op insurance companies. Why not use them?
Thirdly, the Gov't doesn't magically change the amount of money available out there for all these health services. The only thing it has is an ability to borrow astronomical sums of money because of the guaranteed revenue stream from us, the tax payer. If you think that borrowing money to pay for increased health care for an entire nation in perpetuity is wise, then maybe we should also try filling the Sahara desert with water from a Dixie cup, which would be about as effective.
All gov't can do is redistribute the money differently. If you think its more equitable to have a "company" that you can't fire and compels you to use it making all your health choices, then I ask you, why can't we at least leave it to the State Gov'ts?
For my next post: "Why For-Profit ventures are better than Not-For-Profit ventures"
