I think you meant to say "health care is expensive and hospitals have to treat people whether they can pay or not".
Yes, that is what I meant to say. Typed up that reply a bit fast.
Why is health care so expensive? Oh, perhaps because it's the most heavily regulated and subsidized industry in the history of America. If not the most heavily regulated and subsidized, then it's up there with the banking industry.
Regulation artificially lowers supply by making it more difficult and expensive for producers to produce. Subsidies to consumers artificially increase demand by giving consumers "free" money to purchase goods/services. When you have low supply and high demand, prices skyrocket. This is basic, middle school economics that everyone should know, but sadly they don't.
Can you explain the specifics of where/how the FDA (I presume this is whom you're talking about) "artificially lowers supply" while "artificially increase demand by giving consumers free money" because having a sibling who's been in and out of hospital care for years, whose medical care has cost my family out of pocket around a million dollars, I'm very curious.... Because, as I understand it, medical costs have skyrocketed because a *lack of* regulation, overpriced medicine and equipment, a patent system that allows gives companies little monopolies on products (more ones often NOT invented with private R&D but publically funded at public universities).
Yet, isn't it the fact that medical care is MORE regulated in places other than the US yet runs more efficiently? Well, yes it is. And so, why not apply your "basic, middle school economics" to the fact that in other countries, getting an MRI exam costs about 1/4th than it does in the US..
Government intervention is the source of all our economic problems. In a free market, health care would be affordable and more efficient.
FALSE! There is *no possible way* you will ever make a solid argument to support that, but it only takes common-sense to connect all our economic problems with things like the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, years of anti-regulation Bush & Greenspan - naively (stupidly) believing that markets tend to self-regulate,
or lowering tax rates (aka. revenue) while initiating two hideously expensive wars. Those are things you can *intuitively* link to our current economic problems, right?
And if there are procedures that people still can't afford, a free-market solution is financing, making payments on the bill, etc.
What exactly is the free-market solution to getting medical care people can't afford? It's simple. There is none! As David Dreier (R-CA) says: "I don’t that think someone who is diagnosed with a massive tumor should the next day be able to have millions and millions and millions of dollars in health care provided" - right, forget treatment at all - just let them wither away and die.
But let's be honest. Socialism is a trademark of the Left.
Merely caring about the welfare of people is called socialism now? No, how about let's be *REAL* honest and call a political movement more concerned with acquiring personal wealth than fellow Americans dying of preventabl
e illnesses a psycopathic mental disorder.
And you gotta admit, ALL the people who've been pushing that dogma in recent years, the likes of Andrew Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, Pamela Geller, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, really all of them, are a pretty wretched group
of clowns. And if you aren't aware of Ayn Rand's early obsession with William Hickman, you would do well to consult Google.
And don't use the word "Progressive". Progressive implies that radical socialist policies are something new and forward-moving.
I will use 'progressive' because that's precisely what it means.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the only "progressive" social system that has ever existed. Socialism/Communism/Fascism/Theocracy, and any other form of Statism, is Regressive.
The fact that you are completely unable to register any nuance between 'progressivism' and 'socialism' seems clear proof that it's your views that are in the extreme.
Yes, that is what I meant to say. Typed up that reply a bit fast.
Can you explain the specifics of where/how the FDA (I presume this is whom you're talking about) "artificially lowers supply" while "artificially increase demand by giving consumers free money" because having a sibling who's been in and out of hospital care for years, whose medical care has cost my family out of pocket around a million dollars, I'm very curious.... Because, as I understand it, medical costs have skyrocketed because a *lack of* regulation, overpriced medicine and equipment, a patent system that allows gives companies little monopolies on products (more ones often NOT invented with private R&D but publically funded at public universities).
Yet, isn't it the fact that medical care is MORE regulated in places other than the US yet runs more efficiently? Well, yes it is. And so, why not apply your "basic, middle school economics" to the fact that in other countries, getting an MRI exam costs about 1/4th than it does in the US..
FALSE! There is *no possible way* you will ever make a solid argument to support that, but it only takes common-sense to connect all our economic problems with things like the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, years of anti-regulation Bush & Greenspan - naively (stupidly) believing that markets tend to self-regulate,
or lowering tax rates (aka. revenue) while initiating two hideously expensive wars. Those are things you can *intuitively* link to our current economic problems, right?
What exactly is the free-market solution to getting medical care people can't afford? It's simple. There is none! As David Dreier (R-CA) says: "I don’t that think someone who is diagnosed with a massive tumor should the next day be able to have millions and millions and millions of dollars in health care provided" - right, forget treatment at all - just let them wither away and die.
Merely caring about the welfare of people is called socialism now? No, how about let's be *REAL* honest and call a political movement more concerned with acquiring personal wealth than fellow Americans dying of preventabl
e illnesses a psycopathic mental disorder.
And you gotta admit, ALL the people who've been pushing that dogma in recent years, the likes of Andrew Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, Pamela Geller, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, really all of them, are a pretty wretched group
of clowns. And if you aren't aware of Ayn Rand's early obsession with William Hickman, you would do well to consult Google.
Or, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman#Ayn_Rand.27s_The_Little_Street
I will use 'progressive' because that's precisely what it means.
The fact that you are completely unable to register any nuance between 'progressivism' and 'socialism' seems clear proof that it's your views that are in the extreme.