Having a government-run healthcare system means people aren't forced to by insurance. Here, we have the Government system, and also the option of paying for private insurance. Because the private insurance isn't a must-have the way it is in the States, it keeps prices down quite a bit, while in theory encouraging insurers to actually provide a better standard of care than the Government system.... otherwise nobody would buy their insurance. Admittedly, it's not hard to beat the standard of care offered by the HSE (it was woefully mismanaged by the last Government during the boom years and they were rightly excoriated for it) but at the same time My Uncle is still alive today because of the State-run healthcare system after his insurer cut and run on him.
I also personally feel better having life-critical things in the hands of the government which in theory is answerable to me rather than a private company, which is only answerable to it's shareholders. i can vote the government out, but I can't do that do some pencil-pushing middle manager who's looking for every possible reason to deny care and save a little money.
You also have to remember that State-run services can also provide a return to the economy far beyond their cost to the taxpayer. Take the Irish railway network. It'll never run at anything like a profit, there just isn't the passenger numbers or commercial demand to do it. A private company might well chop unprofitable routes, while a State company can well continue to operate at a loss, while the economic activity the railway brings, such as to factories shipping produce or the movement of tourists/shoppers will more than make up for the extra loading on people's tax bills. Providing such services can, while loading the individual taxpayer, benefit the economy as a whole.
Of course, none of this takes into account raw incompetence and cronyism at the heart of the Government. If you want a good argument in favour of regulation and State involvement, take a look at what the banks here did when the Government's back was wilfully turned.
But, I can vote the government out. And I will in February.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
I also personally feel better having life-critical things in the hands of the government which in theory is answerable to me rather than a private company, which is only answerable to it's shareholders. i can vote the government out, but I can't do that do some pencil-pushing middle manager who's looking for every possible reason to deny care and save a little money.
You also have to remember that State-run services can also provide a return to the economy far beyond their cost to the taxpayer. Take the Irish railway network. It'll never run at anything like a profit, there just isn't the passenger numbers or commercial demand to do it. A private company might well chop unprofitable routes, while a State company can well continue to operate at a loss, while the economic activity the railway brings, such as to factories shipping produce or the movement of tourists/shoppers will more than make up for the extra loading on people's tax bills. Providing such services can, while loading the individual taxpayer, benefit the economy as a whole.
Of course, none of this takes into account raw incompetence and cronyism at the heart of the Government. If you want a good argument in favour of regulation and State involvement, take a look at what the banks here did when the Government's back was wilfully turned.
But, I can vote the government out. And I will in February.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?