 |
 |
I must say I am on the opposite side of the argument. It is true that the Govt. does not cure anything but to pass everything to private institutions is to throw out the baby with the water. I think the argument speaks for itself as given below: " My step son takes a Genentech growth hormone for undeveloped kidneys that costs $2000/month and he must take it for three years. That's right - $72,000. Would you pay $72K for a PD cure?" There is no assurance that private industry will not gauge everybody in sight if they have what amounts to a monopoly. Thus I think a judicious partition must be made on how to influence technologic and cultural developments. Private industry cannot and will not fund far out work (pure research , as mentioned in an earlier post). This is primarily the job of universities, but then who is going to fund them, industry or Govt. grants? It sounds like from what at least some people have said that the Govt. is run by lazy, incompetent beaurocrats. I don't really think so. There are hard working people genuinely interested in helping society. As an example, where would we be without Social Security and Medicare? I wonder if private insurance companies would really be more efficient at this, or would they emphasize profits as private industry must. Or should we eliminate these functions altogether to streamline the govt. I don't think so. Another thought: we have all seen the trend over the last few years of where health care insurance and coverage is going. The HMO's are running the show to maximize their profits and to hell with the patients and doctors. At the minimum the Govts place is to regulate and police these organizations. Bottom line: would you rather have a lazy government beaurocrat or a profit hungry private industry? I do have a great deal of trouble trusting private industry because they are too strongly driven by the profit motive at the expense of individuals, the environment, etc. K-F Etzold