No it doesn't. Geesh. We can compare stories until the cows come home. The only thing it'll show is that people have unique experiences with both government-ran and insurance-ran healthcare.
Insurance companies are rational actors. If they are acting in ways that are socially unacceptable then define the market such that they are unable to do that. It's called governance. Not control, but governance.
Come now, you know more than to take your experience and extrapolate it to an entire society, right? And even if you did, why the need for demonization? Just assume things need tweaking and find where the adjustments need to be made. If my doctor got drunk and paralyzed my grand-dad I'd look for cross-checks to prevent drunken doctors from operating, not demand that all of medical care would need overhauling.
To answer my question -- nope, not more than hand-waving. You are indeed correct: I know exactly how this goes. You'll keep up the snide and personal barbs in an effort to draw me out to say something stupid. Either you'll win or not, but in either case you're not interested in what I'm saying, only in the inevitable rebuttal that you'll make.
I'm just going to keep assuming people want to have a conversation, tptacek. Next time if you're only replying -- because why exactly? -- as a game or something you can save us a lot of time and effort by pointing that out, instead of thinking I'm going to remember your nick or style.
What you see in politics and religion I see in every discussion that goes on at HN. People have preconceived ideas, and act mostly on emotion. The question is whether or not they (and me) can move past all that posturing.
So nope, I don't see much at all special about this subject. To me it's the same as "what should I do with my life?" or "C++ or LISP: What should I try first?" or "What types of footwear do you use when you hack?" "Does Country and Western music go with VB programming?" "Has Microsoft stopped being the most evil company on earth yet?" or any one of the 1000 other issues and questions that require people of differing worldviews the chance to converse. (not debate) I enjoy having a conversation, asking questions, and learning stuff. Quite frankly some of the other topics, as emotional as they can be to some, bore me to tears any more.
Insurance companies are rational actors. If they are acting in ways that are socially unacceptable then define the market such that they are unable to do that. It's called governance. Not control, but governance.
Come now, you know more than to take your experience and extrapolate it to an entire society, right? And even if you did, why the need for demonization? Just assume things need tweaking and find where the adjustments need to be made. If my doctor got drunk and paralyzed my grand-dad I'd look for cross-checks to prevent drunken doctors from operating, not demand that all of medical care would need overhauling.
To answer my question -- nope, not more than hand-waving. You are indeed correct: I know exactly how this goes. You'll keep up the snide and personal barbs in an effort to draw me out to say something stupid. Either you'll win or not, but in either case you're not interested in what I'm saying, only in the inevitable rebuttal that you'll make.
C'est finis.