Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
Yes you are. You are arguing for an equal access to health care paid for by somegody else.
A little understanding of the laws of supply and demand wouldn't hurt. When you insist on a right to someone else's productivity with the state as broker, you disrupt the equation.
Look at what has happened in the U.S. over the past few decades. Since the 60s, the percent of health care spending on the part of the government has doubled. During this time, government price caps have caused insurers and providers to increase the rates for the private sector to cover the losses. Now, the government portion is so large that we are experiencing a contraction of supply because operating at a loss is a going out of business strategy.
And so the downward spiral goes: as healthcare becomes more expensive and scarcer, the government will step in to ration it. A self-fulfilling prophecy for state control which only benefits the bureacracy and those close enough to it to get preferential treatment.
The real solution is to encourage an increase in supply by lessening the financial burdens on suppliers. That is the Capitalist way.
|
you fail to address any of the questions i posed in my post, let me sum up the main one:
Why do you consider it perfectly acceptable for the government to provide equal access to the police, the court system and education but do not think that health care should be treated in the same manner. what makes access to protection, the law and information different than access to BASIC health care?