I can't see costs going down when the government is the payer. Look at the historic waste and overpaying of the feds for everything, from military equipment to that famous $500 toilet seat years ago. Health care is rampant with waste, and much of that is in Medicare and Medicaid.
If costs don't go down, how do you explain every other OECD's nation much lower rate of healthcare spending?
Medicare, by the way, tends to have a much lower administrative overhead than most private plans.
By the way, the toilet seat you mentioned was $640 dollars. Wikipedia states:
The P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft went into service in 1962. Twenty-five years later it was determined that the toilet shroud, the cover that fits over the toilet, needed replacement. Since the airplane was out of production this would require new tooling to produce. These on-board toilets required a uniquely shaped, molded fiberglass shroud that had to satisfy specifications for vibration resistance, weight, and durability. The molds had to be specially made, as it had been decades since their original production. The price reflected the design work and the cost of the equipment to manufacture them. Lockheed Corp. charged $34,560 for 54 toilet covers, or $640 each.
The Wiki cites a Time Magazine story for the source.
Now $640 per toilet seat cover may sound high, but once you know the full story, it sounds a lot less wasteful. For normal toilet seats, the government goes for COTS parts, where COTS stands for "Commercial, off the shelf". That is, what you or I would buy, for about the same price.
There are also urban legends about government spending, like this one:
During the space race back in the 1960's, NASA was faced with a major problem. The astronaut needed a pen that would write in the vacuum of space. NASA went to work. At a cost of $1.5 million they developed the "Astronaut Pen". Some of you may remember. It enjoyed minor success on the commercial market.
The Russians were faced with the same dilemma.
They used a pencil.
The actual story is that both the Russians and the Americans used pencils in the beginning. After the Apollo 1 fire, which killed three astronauts, NASA started looking for a writing utensil which wouldn't burn. (Pencils, by the way, were a potential hazard - the lead (which is graphite, a conductor) could break, and floating around in zero-G, could accidentally short out electronics). The pen itself was developed by a private company. They were sold to NASA for $2.95.
RNC this month. I'm hoping Romney's campaign doesn't unjustly disqualify anymore of Paul's delegates - for someone who has already "won" they sure are trying very hard to get that official nomination. With the court case pending to unbind all delegates due to vote fraud and with the tax investigations Romney may not even be able to get the nomination even after the shenanigans being pulled against the delegates.
Yep, they did.
DQ'd Maine, Massachusetts, and a few others' delegates.
Furthermore they decided last-minute to change rules in order to shut out Ron Paul from being nominated and from now on delegates who do not vote the way the establishment wants will not be allowed to vote; standard rule now for their future security.
That's right, the people who we send to vote will not be used if not OK'd, they will hand pick their own delegates who vote the way they want.
Very awesome we have no say in who we want nominated.
Have fun choosing between Romney and Obama, both bought and paid for by the wealthy elite.
I think Ayn Rand didn't actually like libertarians.
My Politics are somewhere between liberal and libertarian.
I recently reads some quotes attributed to her talking down Libertarians. The concept of a Libertarian may have been different back then, but she presented a useful perspective that many Libertarians support, despite what she may think of the party today.
Interesting to note though, the way she talked about Libertarians was about a type of person who was a left-wing hippy being kicked out to be more right-wing anarch.
Hippy, anarch, Libertarian... these concepts may not have a standard definition... so I'm unsure what to make of an understanding right now and it really doesn't make much of a difference to me as someone who supports liberty no matter what name we give it.
I'd be interested in hearing about what being between Liberal and Libertarian means to you.