I think the weight of evidence shows that corporations seeking profit will generally operate a more desirable system than a system run by government. I said that before, and I get it that you disagree.
To expand on my previous point, having a third party paying for something puts incentives in the wrong place, and you end up with a distorted market and out of control costs. Putting the government in charge to manage these things by fiat doesn't help (see Hayek's knowledge problem), and in fact, makes things worse.
I'm impressed that your are unable to equate "a third party [insurance company] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties" with "a third party [government] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties."
It's almost as impressive as your idea of "Tea Party myths."
That's a fair question, and I'd also ask what you meant by corporations "providing for our health."
Personally, I would expect that I'd probably have insurance for something unexpected like this. Or perhaps I'd simply keep a certain amount of cash on hand for unexpected medical issues, and use that to pay a doctor to set the broken arm, put on a cast, etc.
I would actually trust corporations a lot more than I would the government. In theory (if they haven't colluded with the government) the corporation actually has an incentive to satisfy my needs (I'm assuming we're talking about an insurance company). Of course, there are mitigating factors, like how much competition there is for my business, but it's gotta be better than a government monopoly (unless it's an actual private monopoly colluding with the government or something, at which point it's probably about the same).
Maximizing profit while satisfying consumers is generally a good thing. For a health care related example, take a look at the corrective eye surgery industry. The procedure is generally not covered by insurance, so there is competition both on quality and price.
No. Why would you think that? I countered your speculation with another speculation (though less speculative, I think), and then made a comment about how this sort of conversation tends to go.
I can't imagine how you could read any of my previous post as an ad hominem argument, so now I'm sure the rest of your arguments are wrong.
I suppose you believe that I'd prefer to grow all of my food and make my clothes, too. Well, at least then I guess I'd have a use for a man made of straw.
Yeah, but so what? Americans die more often from other things, like car accidents. So it's probably underestimating the increase.
It's annoying that critics of the stupid way Americans pay for health insurance fall back on aggregated statistics to convince us to move to an even stupider way of paying for health care that seems to result in inferior outcomes.
"The cohort of Japanese men in the Honolulu Heart Program studies has a life expectancy that is longer than their counterparts in Japan, and Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world."
Why are corporations the only alternative? Why wouldn't you prefer rely on yourself?
If you think that Americans live shorter lives than Europeans because of the respective health care systems, how do you explain that Japanese immigrants to America live longer than Japanese in Japan (who live longer than Europeans)?