Did someone say something that indicated impatience?
Since they didn't, then there is no reason for the condescension and the "panties in a bunch" approach. In fact, there is no reason at all to even refer to other forum members in these discussions as to their personal characteristics or how much time they might have; serves no purpose except to be insulting. :nono:
It's not that cut and dried, and the gov't has no less of a conflict of interest than anyone else, not to mention they screw up everything they try to run.
That is actually a rather democratic theme lately...! Throw a bunch of money at it, and then flush it down the toilet. And since the gov't doesn't have the money unless we give it to them, I'm not sure why ANY plan that involves the gov't would function any other way.
The power to negotiate with drug companies is not some magical technique that is only available to the gov't or a single-payer provider. Anyone can negotiate. And you cannot prove that administrative costs will drop in a US gov't run single-payer system; our gov't is notorious for paying to much for everything. And our current gov't provided healthcare plan is one of the most fraudulent in the country. Since it typically compensates at a lower rate, it would be reasonable to expect the fraud to multiply if the gov't was the only payer.
And you must also recognize that these proposals are not uniquely republican; the current majority in congress is not interested in a single-payer system either.
And the reality is that descriptions of the "problem" are greatly exgaggerated. I propose approaching this with baby steps instead of running up and trying to smash the whole thing with a big hammer. Start out addressing the things that are not so controversial, yet will serve to make a big differrence. First step; tort reform. If providers are not faced with massive malpractice suits and the environment which encourages wasteful and costly defensive practice, the cost of healthcare would decrease. It would free up services to serve more people, and make it more affordable to everyone.
This first step alone might go far in actually making dramatic improvements in the system without requiring an unnecessary complete overhaul.
Of course common sense directs that even before this were to happen, the discussion needs to first be presented honestly...and as the discussions in this forum have indicated, people aren't even willing to acknowledge that the alleged number of uninsured is inaccurately displayed in these exchanges.