Universal Health Care

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 9 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]493100[/snapback]</div>

The EU as a whole has a larger and more diverse population that the US. The EU has a whole spends less than the US to cover a greater percentage of the population. The EU has a whole scores better than the US for health care. The EU has the same challenges with immigration both legal and illegal that the US has. (I've been in European factories in 12 counties from Sweden to Italy and France to the Czech Republic)

I find it funny that you know so much about how bad things are the Europe but the hundreds of Europeans that I've talked to have nothing but good things to say about their health care. So your argument is that they just don't know that should be sad that they live longer and are healthier than Americans?

I'm also interested to see that your insurance premiums haven't come down as promised. You can go to the State of New York's website and read all about "Healthy New York", it is even available in Spanish if you prefer. This is the program the Wisconsin is modeling their reinsurance program on. Could it be that the insurance companies just converted their savings from what the state covered into profits? Never, corporations would never to that, they are all about the public good.

http://www.ins.state.ny.us/website2/hny/english/hny.htm

BTW, you are most likely not eligible for Healthy New York since I would guess you make more than $51,384 per year for a family of 4 and you probably have insurance offered by your employer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 9 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]493114[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the providing the smoking gun!

Using the statistics that you provided, if you take the $7 billion budget for TennCare for 2007 and divide that by 1.2 million people, you will find out that the state was spending $5,833 per recipient. Assuming that these numbers are accurate, the cost was so high that the state would have been better off buying each recipient a health policy in the private market. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's "Employee Health Benefits: 2006 Annual Survey", the annual premium for single coverage averaged $4,200.

So, the State of Tennessee wasted about $1,600 per recipient on its own bungled program. With 1.2 million recipients, that totals $1.92 billion in annual waste. Once again, proof positive that the government can't run a program as efficiently as the free market!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]493138[/snapback]</div>

What is the coverage in the private insurance for an average of $4,200?

Does it include, Chiropractic, Dental, Optical (including glasses), Orthodontics, Physical Therapy, Substance Abuse Programs, Mental Health, Weight loss surgery, Child Care while hospitalized, Home Health Care, Transportation to your appointments? All of the above are covered by TennCare. (That is way better than the insurance offered by my previous employer where I had to pay the first $1000 per year and cost $13200 per year when offered under COBRA, coverage for 2 BTW)

If you look at the fact sheet you will find that 20% of the program's cost is for long term care. That is because TennCare is also available for the institutionalized and disabled requiring nursing home care. How much does it cost me to buy a private insurance policy if I'm confined to a nursing home? Can you even find a company that will write a policy for someone in that situation? I don't have long term care insurance. If I was suddenly to become permanently confined to a a nursing home due to some accident my insurance would cover me for 100 days, then they would take all my family's savings, then I would go to Medicaid. If I still lived in TN I would be part of that 20% of $7 Billion.

I recently had a personal issue that scared the crap out of me. About 5 months ago I visited my doctor to have him check out some tremors I was having in my hands. The GP suspected MS and sent me to a neurologist. (Waited 7 weeks to see the GP, 5 weeks to see the neurologist for the first appointment, 3 weeks for the first test, and 1 week for the last test BTW) The bizarre thing was the idea of having MS didn't scare me nearly as much as the realization that at a diagnosis of MS at the age of 29 would black-ball me from health-insurance for life. It didn't turn out to be MS so I'm good for health and life insurance in the future, but just the thought of life without insurance scares me.

 

Let's bring this back to where it belongs:

From thread "Will the Prius Value go up"

JHinton:
When Katrina hit and gas spiked to $3.25 per gallon, TDI's with 100K miles were going for more than new on Ebay. I saw dozens of similar car to mine sell for $8 to $10K over bluebook values for about 2 months before the craziness wore off. If that happens again this hurricane season I'll be selling the TDI.

Swanny:
I'm confused. Based on your comments in other threads, you seem opposed to a free-market. So, do you support the supply and demand concept inherent in a free-market, or only when it works to your advantage?

JHinton:
I'm a bit confused too. Are you implying that I should not sell my TDI? I know that it is a great car but my wife and I really don't need two large cars so we are in the market to get rid of one. That will happen before the new TDI Jetta Wagon comes out in March of 2008.

Now I think you are implying that due my support for universal health care that I shouldn't take advantage of someone willing to give me thousands more than my car is worth because they decide to freak out about temporary high gas prices. I disagree and will gladly take their money if they are willing to offer it.

Now about free markets. I don't think that the free market is the best solution to all problems. Some things require that we look after the common good. The common good and free market profit strategies don't ever seem to overlap. For example, I don't think we should have a free market for gasoline in the US. I'm a big supporter of a $5 per gallon gas tax to be used for an "Apollo Moon Landing" level government program to develop renewable technologies to replace the U.S.'s dependence on fossil fuels.

Swanny:
Listen, I don't want to hi-jack this thread. I was merely pointing out what I saw to be a rather self-serving position you had taken that was contradictory to what you had previously posted in other thread. Like I said, you seem to support free-markets only when they benefit you personally.


Now you say that I seem to only support free markets when they benefit me since I would sell my car at a large profit if it was offered. I suppose I should favor some sort of government run agency that sets fixed prices of sales of cars. (I don't by the way, because the price of cars is not something important enough to the country as a whole that the government should be involved)

You also seem to think that I support universal health care because it would benefit me personally. That would be incorrect. I have never been without health insurance. I was covered under my father's insurance until I graduated from college and started work as an engineer. My wife and I have had decent coverage with the companies that I have worked for. We have excellent coverage now with the company that she works for. Universal health care will cost me money.

All those that are uninsured now will have coverage and that money has to come from somewhere. In looking after the common good this naturally means that those with more will pay more even though they receive the same benefit as those that have and pay less. Since our combined income puts us in the 28% tax bracket we would be on the side of paying more. This doesn't bother me. Having a healthy population is not just morally right but it is also better economically for the US. Taking the financial burden off the individual and private employer and spreading that over the population as a whole will also help the US be more competitive globally.

We will also reduce the amount of money that we spend on health care as a percentage of GDP. This will allow us to use that money for more useful things that can help us be more competitive globally. After all health care is a service and not something that can be easily exported. Money spent on healthcare is a drain on our economy not a benefit. The only way for the U.S. as a whole to prosper is if we have capital coming in from outside the country. To me this means we need tangible products to export. We will not continue to prosper as a country if our economy becomes dependent on selling services to each other within the country.

 

jhinton--

In case you missed most of the 20th century, I'll sum it up for you -- Markets work better than Socialism.

It is really quite simple. Either you support free markets or you don't. You seem to think that the US health care system is a free market today, and that simply is not true. Our health care system is hampered by government intervention, and the solution is not more government intervention, but less.

The tax treatment of health insurance, where premiums are deducted from employees' pre-tax income, explains why so many of us rely on our employers to select and pay for health insurance. Since there is a third-party payer, we have little incentive to shop around and wisely use health services.

You want to talk about costs? The U.S. government now pays for and controls half of the health care in America. That is up from less than 10 percent forty years ago. Government spending on health care has increased at a rapid rate as its share of health care has increased.

You complain about the total amount of spending on health care in the United States to seemingly justify complete government control, but you fail to consider how much of the current spending is attributable to or mandated by government programs.

What would really happen if we had no options except government health care and no place else to go? For years the advocates of a total takeover of health care by the government have pointed to the Veterans Administration as the model of efficient and caring health care by our government. It provides an ideal model, they said, for all health care.

And what have we learned? Apparently nothing, because you think the same government will perform differently this time around.

The tragedies of the woeful care our soldiers received at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center happened right under the nose of Congress—so close in fact, that they could see it first-hand from the windows of the VIP suites at the hospital which are reserved for Cabinet members and Congressmen. So what kind of quality and oversight should the rest of us expect from a government system?

You seem to be living in a fantasy world with a supposedly caring and efficient government. But exactly when did the government develop an ability to restrain expense, because it certainly hasn't been able to during the forty years of exploding Medicare and Medicaid spending.

 

Swanny,

So the numbers show will show that the US is doing much better than the EU right? After all, free markets will always trump socialism right. The EU is weighed down with all those social programs that are just a drag on the economy.

Let’s look at some numbers:

Statistic-----------------------------------U.S.A.-----------------------EU
GDP------------------------------------$13.13 T-------------------$13.06 T
GDP Growth----------------------------3.2%-------------------------3.1%
GDP per capita-----------------------$44,000---------------------$29.900
GDP by Sector
---Agriculture---------------------------0.9%-------------------------2.1%
---Industry------------------------------20.4%-----------------------27.3%
---Service-------------------------------78.6%-----------------------70.5%
Population below Poverty Line-----12%----------------------------17%
Labor Force----------------------------151.4 M---------------------221.5 M
Unemployment------------------------4.4%--------------------------7.0%
Exports---------------------------------$1.024 T--------------------$1.466 T
Imports---------------------------------$1.869 T--------------------$1.330 T
Trade Deficit---------------------------$0.845 T-(Negative)-----$0.133 T (Positive)
Public Debt-----------------------------$9.0 T----------------------$8.14T

It looks like the EU is doing pretty good to me. Actually they are doing REALLY good considering they just brought in 10 very poor countries with very high unemployment and GDP per capita below $15K. Their economy is less dependent on service and more on industry. The EU is $1 Trillion ahead of the US when it comes to trade deficits. The dollars has fell over 50% compared to the Euro over the last 5 years. All of this and they get free health care and 6 weeks of vacation per year.

You point to the high cost of Medicare and Medicaid as a failure of socialized medicine. Our current system is a hybrid of the private and public sector. It is in my opinion the worst combination you can get. It is not wholly public, eliminating insurance companies and Managed Care Networks and their levels of administration and profits. It is not wholly private and unregulated which I have no doubt would bring down cost but also would reduce the standard of care and access to care for some. It is a hybrid where the government pays the private sector to perform the service adding another level of bureaucracy on top of the private system. I think that expanding Medicare or Medicaid to the whole population would be a disaster. As I said, I don't see the U.S. implementing a true universal health care system.

You point to Walter Reed as an example of the failure of the VA system. Walter Reed is not a good example of the failure of VA system as a whole. Walter Reed is the failure of the system to handle large number of severely wounded soldiers from sustained war. Why? Because we weren’t suppose to have lots of casualties or have a sustained war. The war was suppose be over in a couple weeks and we would be treated as liberators. Remember? No one planned for a long sustained war. Even when it has became obvious that we are in for a long war, all we hear is a continuous series of “6 more monthsâ€. Walter Reed was horrible but is not the fault of the people in the system. It is a failure of the leadership to plan for the obvious.

 

Are you saying that the EU's economy is doing better than the US simply because of a different health care delivery model?

I do agree with you that health care costs are the problem. The 47 million that are uninsured are just a symptom. Here's a real blast of wisdom for you--47 million people don't have health insurance because their family can't afford it, or their employer can't afford it, or their government can't afford it, or some combination.

So, why do you think we should try to pile millions of more people back on board a system we can't afford to keep afloat?

The best solution is to remove government regulation and bring competition into the marketplace. Untie health care coverage from employers and make it portable. Allow insurers to compete freely and to offer plans that meet consumer needs and budgets. And finally, get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and go to a voucher system. By getting rid of the inefficiencies of the government bureaucracy and opening the market to competition, you could most likely insure everyone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 10:57 PM) [snapback]493374[/snapback]</div>

You are the one that said the 20th century has taught that markets work better than socialism. The US is held up as the champion of free markets while Europe is described as a socialist backwater by many holding your view that the market is the best solution to any problem. You and others say that is is simply impossible to provide universal care to a population due to the incredible cost. I point to the EU's prosperous economy because they manage to provide universal health care and not go bankrupt.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 9 2007, 10:57 PM) [snapback]493374[/snapback]</div>

OK, so the government gets out of health care altogether and lets the private sector do what ever they want.

Do we get rid of the FDA too? After all, no company would produce a drug or device that might injure someone because then people wouldn't buy their products and they would go out of business. It would make my wife really happy too because her company makes implantable devices and the FDA requires huge amounts of testing and paperwork before you can sell a product. Think of the cost savings!

While were at it we can get rid of the EPA too. No company would ever dump waste into a river or bury it somewhere because the market would prevent that too right? Just like it did back in the "good old days"

We can get rid of the DOT too since no car maker would make a car like that Cherry that crumpled like a tin can even if they were allowed to. We wouldn't still be all driving dodge darts! Just look at history, the automakers have always rushed to add things like crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags long before they were forced too by the mean old government. The market would demand safer cars even if they cost more, or if they didn't then "That's what we get".

Maybe we can get rid of the police and just go back to shootouts on main street too. Oh and fire brigades that let your house burn if you were a member of a rival brigade. :lol:

Yes, the free market and "Me and Mine" that's the only way to go.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 9 2007, 11:48 PM) [snapback]493399[/snapback]</div>

Dont forget to eliminate Social Security.
Sounds farfetched and crazy, but what you are joking about is what Libertarians actually stand for.
A few months back Ron Paul got a lot of support for his anti- war stance.Most people have no idea he is a libertarian who has exactly the stance you are ridiculing.I suspect Swanny1172 may be as extreme.
I call them fascists who smoke pot.They want a world run by corporations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 9 2007, 08:35 PM) [snapback]493370[/snapback]</div>

Walter Reed is not part of the VA Hospital health system. It is an Army hospital, run by the Army, not the VA. As such, it is much better than the average VA hospital.

Dr. Berman was right in an early post; remove the mandates that force me to pay for "alternative medicine" (i.e., quackery) such as acupuncture, accupressure, aroma therapy, mental health, family counseling, etc. California requires that employers include those "extras". Let me buy the coverage I want to buy on the open market. My employer will give me the $800 a month they pay, and I'll keep the $300 a month I pay, and I'll find a policy that meets my needs.

Often, your health insurance at work is paid for by the company, not the insurance company. For many companies who 'self insure' all claims are reimbursed to the insurance company until you get to a certain level. At my last company, any claims over a million dollars were paid by the insurance company; up until that point, the insurance company acted merely as an administrative agency to collect the premiums and pay the doctors. The company had to pay any difference between the premiums collected and the outlay. Plus the administrative fee, of course. Often, when your rates go up at your employer, its because your co-workers were sick more last year.

The problem with this arrangement is that it turns the idea of insurance on its head; you aren't spreading the costs out among the general population, but among your fellow workers. The pool is much too small. To reduce medical costs, eliminate direct billing by the doctor to an insurance company, and make everyone pay the doctor and submit the bill along with a form for reimbursement later.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 9 2007, 11:35 PM) [snapback]493370[/snapback]</div>

Actually the EU stats look terrible - they have a 50% larger work force and they have nearly the same GDP as we do and there unemployment is almost double? And the number of people in poverty is 50% greater than ours? And the GDP per capita is that poor compared to our? Tell me, what is their population growth rate compared to ours? And where is most of their growth coming from? Actually the EU does not look so healthy - perhaps its their socialized medical system :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 10 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]493399[/snapback]</div>

Yep.

Yep, again.

The FDA has undoubtedly prevented much harm from unsafe drugs that might otherwise not have been vetted—although this could have been accomplished by other means. But it added enormously to the development cost of new drugs, thereby substantially adding to their price, and delaying their benefits being available to patients—sometimes for many years. It has also, with cruel indifference, prevented access to experimental drugs by terminally ill patients who are near death and willing to take some risk to stay alive. With all this control and lengthy review, we clearly still have drug safety problems, and it is time to explore options other than adding to the size and power of the FDA.

The best protection for patients is the self-interest of drug companies. The beauty of private research is that is has to get results. Drug companies will prosper only if they bring drugs to market that are effective without unreasonable side effects—and as they maintain a reputation for doing so. In addition to whatever independent review process is used, we may also rely on the self-interest of legions of trial lawyers to pursue any malfeasance that might circumvent the review process.

You make it sound as if that still doesn't happen today.

Funny, but private industry, not goverment, invented all the safety features that you mention. All government did was mandate their use by all automakers, which the market would have forced all of them to do anyway to remain competitive.

Now you are taking it a step too far. Nobody is advocating getting rid of the police or fire departments. I also believe that anyone who harms another person should be held responsible for that action. Any society that lets kids grow up dependent on government welfare, attending government schools that fail to teach, and entering an economy where government policy has crushed opportunity, will be a society that breeds criminals. No permanent solution to crime will be found until we address these root causes of crime.

In terms of you asinine, "shootouts on main street" comment, I suppose that you want to get rid of personal firearms ownership as well and only have the government owning guns. I believe that the private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime.

As P.J. O' Rourke once said, "A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 10 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]493477[/snapback]</div>

Real World 101

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Aug 10 2007, 01:22 AM) [snapback]493423[/snapback]</div>

Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.

This is a fraud.

Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income--approximately 12%--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.

If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12% of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12% to retirement. He might choose to work far past the age of 65. He might choose to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.

And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?

The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

I find it interesting that you mention Ron Paul, who is totally opposed to the large and oppressive government that we have now. Unlike other presidential candidates that are raising their money from special interest groups, greater than 99 percent of Paul's funds have come from individuals, with almost half (47%) raised from small contributions ($200 or less).

Spoken like a true moonbat.

You want a world run by the government, albeit one that has created inefficient service monopolies throughout the economy. As someone wise once said, "Giving government money and power is like giving car keys and whiskey to a teenage boy."

From the US Postal Service to municipal garbage collection and water works, government is forcing citizens to use monopoly services. These are services that the private sector is already capable of providing in a manner that gives the public better service at a competitive price. The US Postal Service once said it wasn't possible to deliver packages overnight. FedEx and UPS proved them wrong. You fault me because I want FedEx health care -- innovation, new cancer treatments, hip replacements and pain relief. We get that from private-sector competition, not government lethargy

 

I think you are overestimating how "free" our markets are Swanny.
If they were truly free markets, we'd be paying a heck of alot more for our gas and the market would push for better efficiency, and CAFE increases would not matter. As it is, those in power use the large blunt tool of government to keep the market the way they need to keep profits up. I don't disagree with using the military to keep the spigot of ME oil protected. But you can't say that the price of gas has anything to do with a free market when we invest trillions of dollars to the military to protect those assets and that cost does not go into the price of gas. It is an indirect subsidy. The same is true for the health industry. All the government intervention and the price increases that they seem to cause for all of this is a result of the health industry getting involved with the politics and skewing them to their advantage. Look at medicare/medicaid. You can't tell me those programs are not heavily influenced by health care insiders and lobbyists to their own advantage. The latest Medicare drug programs did nothing to reduce the costs of drugs to seniors, they actually prevented Medicare (the LARGEST drug buyer) from negotiating fair prices like every else does. They pay MORE than anyone! It's a scam. We need to get the pharma/healthcare lobbyists out of Washington. They are why the US spends twice as much on healthcare. They run a racket, much like the energy companies do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 10 2007, 10:02 AM) [snapback]493498[/snapback]</div>

If you read any of my posts, you would see that I have never claimed that we have a free market system now in the United States. On the contrary, most of our markets are regulated by the government which results in the kinds of problems you pointed out. All I am saying is that we should remove this regulation and allow the market to respond.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 10 2007, 06:05 AM) [snapback]493459[/snapback]</div>

I must assume you are total ignorant of what has been happening with the EU over the past 4 years so I guess I'll bring you up to date. In 2004 the EU added 10 mostly Eastern European counties and went from 15 countries to 25 countries. All of these countries were and still are very poor in comparison to the 15 Western European counties that made up the EU prior to May 1st, 2004. These new countries are: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

In 2007, the EU added two more poor Eastern European countries, Bulgaria and Romania for a total of 27 countries.

These countries have a population of 109 million people and represented a increase in EU population of just under 30%. So, if you look at the EU as a whole, their population is growing most rapidly by accepting new, mostly poor countries into the union. If you look at the individual counties most of their population growth is from immigration. The native population in a lot of Western European countries are not reproducing at a rate to do more than sustain the present population and some have declining native populations. Most of these immigrants are coming from Africa, eastern and central Asia, and former Soviet Bloc countries. The 15 pre-2004 EU member states are also having an influx of people from the 12 new member states as they are free to travel within the EU.

These are the financial stats on the new EU member States (CIA 2006 numbers)

State----------------GDP / Capita-----Pop (Millions)------% Poverty------% Unemployed
Bulgaria-----------------10700-------------7.3----------------14.1-----------------9.6
Cyprus-------------------12592------------0.8-----------------N/A-----------------9.7
Czech Republic----------21900----------10.3------------------N/A----------------8.4
Estonia-------------------20300------------1.3-------------------5-----------------4.5
Hungary-----------------17,600-----------10.0-----------------8.6----------------7.4
Latvia---------------------16000------------2.3-----------------N/A----------------6.5
Lithuania------------------15300------------3.6------------------4------------------5.7
Malta----------------------21000------------0.4-----------------N/A----------------6.8
Poland-----------------14300---------38.5-------------17-------------14.9
Romania----------------9100---------22.3-------------25--------------6.1
Slovakia------------------18200-------------5.4-----------------21----------------10.2
Slovenia------------------23400--------------2-----------------12.9----------------9.6

Now look the the two highlight countries, Poland and Romania. These are the two of the three poorest countries in the EU and they make up 12% of the total population.

You complain about 13 million illegal immigrants being a drain of the American economy. The make up about 4% of the total population. Just image if the US suddenly accepted Mexico as the 51st state and all 109 million people became US citizens. How would our GDP per capita numbers look then? This is essentially what the EU did in 2004.

You also point out the poverty numbers. I would like to point out to you that the EU and the US use different formulas to calculate the poverty line. The EU sets the poverty line at 60% of a country's median household income. If you used this method for the US the official poverty line would be $27600 for a family of 4 instead of $20,000. (2006 numbers) What do the number look like with an equal measurement?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 10 2007, 07:49 AM) [snapback]493477[/snapback]</div>

It's funny but the company that my wife works for would like more regulation instead of less. You see their biggest single expense is "Marketing", which is more than R&D and manufacturing combined. I put it in quotes because they don't even market their product the public. The sell directly to surgeons. And it seems that surgeons won't use your product unless you bring them on all-expense-paid "conferences" in resort areas to tell them all about your product and to give them yearly updates. You don't actually need to attend the meetings though. They also expect to be put on the roles as "consultants" to give speeches at these "conferences" at a thousands a pop if they actually decide to use the product. So "marketing" turns out to be bribes and kickbacks. Her company's area of the market has yet to be regulated yet so all these things are still very legal and necessary to sell your product.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 10 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]493486[/snapback]</div>

You mean like our private cellular phone networks that are years behind the publicly regulated ones in Europe.

The free market in the US as gotten me poor reception, dropped calls, roaming fees when using towers from other networks, and hardware than is not compatible from company to company.

That compares to the regulated service in Europe where all the companies use share one common network. I have excellent reception both voice and data even in tiny villages in rural Czech Republic, can download at up to 6 mbps, and the hardware is compatible no matter what carrier I choose.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 10 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]493486[/snapback]</div>

I fault you because what you will get is Enron or Worldcom health care, run by thieves.Or ExxonMobil health care, highest profits in history due to supply shortages.Or Walmart health care,screw your desperate workers.
Your libertarian philosophy was developed before the invention of the corporation.Today even with competition between megacorporations they are powerful enough to manipulate markets.Or they simply collude to fix prices .
(I forgot to mention Dept of Labor regulations protecting workers.Libertarians would love to dissolve that. )

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Aug 10 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]493605[/snapback]</div>

Sounds to me like you want to throw the baby out with the bath water. The number of active U.S. corporations is nearing 5 million, yet you seemingly have no problems generalizing the accounting scandals of a few across the entire group. Of course, what you fail to point out is that scandals and corruption happen in government as well.