Look at the history of Walmart and how they got to where they are today. I didn't say anything about force, I said that the normal human condition is for the big to get bigger.
Now you are just dissembling. You continued to define your original position more narrowly when it was clear that your original position was simply not true.
"than you force some people in to a system that isn't going to be as good for them"
What? What is this statement based upon? What isn't going to be good for them? That is such a broad statement based upon no evidence that it is simply meaningless. What are you talking about?
As I have said before, rationing based on wait times is a completely different thing than rationing based on inability to pay and eventual death or unnecessary suffering. I will take rationing based on wait times or copayments over rationing based on suffering and death any time.
I believe that a civilized society should, for both moral and practical reasons, place health and well-being of all ahead of profits for some.
-----
I can't predict the future but I have provided ample evidence of how other industrialized nations do a better job than we do and how our exploding health care costs are unsustainable even if we are willing to pay for our over priced system. I have showed you where our current system leads even the fully insured to have denial or limitations of payment. I have pointed out the corruption when Medicare was changed, the demographic issues and opportunities to reduce costs with preventive care.
I have numbers, examples and rational arguments while you have opinion based upon ideology. Provide some meat for your position.
------
Actually, Reid's experience (shown on the Frontline piece I linked) showed that this was not true. He was looking at scans (MRIs I think) which the Japanese government said were simply too expensive. They wouldn't pay and so Toshiba came up with really inexpensive scanners to meet its 'markets' requirement for cost.
The result is a new product line for them that they can sell overseas at greatly reduced costs BECAUSE their market (the government) said they could do better. They did better. What, if you are a capitalist, do you object to in this case?
Your ideology and the CW may say something but the real world says something quite different. In contrast, the drug companies in the US can charge us outsized prices and use us to subsidize their drugs in foreign countries. How much sense does that make?
Are you really a capitalist?
If drug companies want to remain in business, they will spend more on R&D than they do on slick advertising and marketing direct to consumers. That would be just the opposite of what they do today. They are simply milking their old products in our current private system, not spending it on R&D.
How in the world do individual consumers negotiate drug prices?
You have a simplistic view of economics and human behavior. Having outsized returns leads drug companies to purchase politicians, advertise to consumers and doctors and lobby for extended patent protection. That is what they do to protect their 'blockbuster' drugs while not doing things like coming up with better antibiotics.
They are also known to ignore studies in order to continue plying their 'blockbuster' drugs for money. That is a bad consequence of money. Many people do many good things for little money. Money is only one factor driving human behavior.
------
Where is the information (is there a study?) where government aid for higher education caused a rise in per pupil costs? Did that apply to per pupil costs in private universities as well?
The AMA has done a great job limiting the doctor population in the US by limiting the number of seats at medical schools and tamping down the number of foreign educated doctors to boot. I have no problem opening up more medical schools or increasing the number we have.
|
