Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

The purpose of government is not to require the most efficient option. Government isn't capable of it anyway. Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of government is to protect our rights. "Single payer" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) by definition violates rights by forcing people to do things against their will. For example, in Canada (until recently) people were prohibited from using private health care even if they want to.

The health systems in Europe are not radically different from the US system. The efficiencies of each are difficult to quantify without context. For example, the US invents most of the drugs and medical technology used by the world. Would this still happen if there was more invasive regulation? We can't know.

Besides all of this, think of every other area of the market where the government insinuates itself. Are public schools better than private schools? Almost never. Is the US postal system better than FedEx? Of course not. The government is not a commercial entity. The incentives and influences on it are not conducive to producing quality products at good prices.

The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fact. Liberals in particular tend to see the purpose of government as providing options for those who don't have any other options because the market fails many people. As such social programs have existed for decades, it's factually self evident that the purpose of government as decided by the majority of the population, far exceeds protecting rights.

> Are public schools better than private schools?

Yes, they are far better than private school, for those who can't afford private schools.

> Is the US postal system better than FedEx?

Yes, it's far better than FedEx for those who live in place FedEx wouldn't and couldn't operate profitably because the postal system's aim isn't efficiency, it's coverage to "everyone" everywhere, something no market solution will offer because that's not a profitable mission.

So it sounds to me like you don't understand the purpose of government and don't understand why government is necessary in such situations, because you can't think outside of your own self and realize that markets don't serve everyone.

"The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is" - I believe you can see that the logical conclusion of that point of view is not a world you'd want to live in. In the US, at least, we have a Constitution that prevents the worst uses of government (though not as much as it used to).

Wrong, it's exactly the world I want to live in and the Constitution happens to agree, which is why we've amended it many a time, because the governed decided it was outdated. The notion that we should still be living by the dictates of men long dead is simply absurd, every generation has a right to decide for itself how its government works as it should, and as we have done.

So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.

No, you're not thinking clearly; the constitution requires a super majority, and yes, if a super majority of people want to be governed a particular way, then they deserve that right, even if it's stupid; but you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution and would be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Without the notion that the rules can and do change for each generation, we'd still have slaves, thankfully, we don't live under a set of rules that can never be changed.

The will of the majority, and especially the super majority, is far better a thing to live under than the will of a handful of people from 238 years ago and any suggestion to the contrary is the definition of not thinking clearly.

"you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution" - oh really? Please open a US history book.