Which would you rather have: free, guaranteed access to a product of low quality, "one size fits all" with regard to features, little to no hope for future innovation, run by bureaucrats, and where the providers are likely to have cost overruns and eventually go bankrupt?
Or a product you are required to pay for, that is available, of reasonable quality, with a variety of choices, run by companies who are competing and trying to attract customers, and continuously improving and innovating their product with new and emerging technologies, and where the providers make a profit so you have some comfort they will be around for a while?
I know my answer to the question.
Is this not the essence of the health care debate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment