John wrote: I think I see a communication problem here. You talk of the "free > market" as if it were a thing, like a replicator on Star Trek that > provides food. When I talk of a free market, I mean the state of not > restricting or coercing people in their choices to freely interact > with each other. Freedom to choose as one wishes without being told > what to do by others.
No, there is no communication problem. In its most basic definition, a free market is a market that is free from government intervention. What has become painfully obvious in recent years is that as the market frees itself from governemental constraints, those in a position to manipulate it for their own benefit do so without regard for the greater good. In the case of health care, we have the free marketeers lobbying against any kind of government alternative to private insurance, but offering no substantial improvement over the status quo. The private health care companies wish to continue to 1. not insure anyone that can not pay their hefty premiums and co-pays 2.Pay as little as possible for people that _are_ insured and get sick 3. get the government to pay for as much of their costs as they can get away with and 4. make as much money as possible. The result being the f**ked up system we have today wherein we pay by far the most per capita and don't get the best care and don't even cover a huge segment of the population. > So, to explore your question, there are non-coercive institutions that > provide services and do not make a profit. They are usually called, > aptly enough, non-profit corporations, or charities. People freely > choose to support certain institutions which, in their judgment, > provide a "vital benefit to society". If non-profits and charities are such wonderful solutions, why do we still have such a massive problem? To get back on topic, if Americans had not been forced to pay to land > people on the moon (or something else) but had instead decided where > to spend their money themselves, undoubtedly some fraction of the > spending would have gone to various charitable causes. If landing > people on the moon were important enough to enough people, it could > have been done by a non-profit (or profit) organization or > organizations. But I think the fact is that landing people on the moon > is not important enough to enough people. It mostly just appeals to a > small number of special interests and looks good on a politicians > record. Your pretext; that we were forced to pay for the Apollo program is fallacious. We elected the leaders that conceived of the program and re-elected the leaders that pledged to continue it. I have little doubt that if you polled the world about man's greatest achievements, the Apollo program would rank at or near the top of the survey. If you asked the people of this country today if Apollo was worth the money, well, here's the poll: [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/121736/Majority-Americans-Say-Space-Program-Costs-Justified.aspx ] I laud charitable organizations and the good work they do, but the idea that they could have an impact on problems such as health care is even a greater fallacy. We're an extremely rich nation and have been for quite some time, but when it comes to spending a grand on a new plasma TV or giving the money to charity, guess what we do most of the time. We give money to charity when it gives us a good tax break mostly. This is not to say that there are individuals that are extremely charitable, rich and poor alike. There are many people that give of themselves, but this generosity is not pervasive enough to make a dent in our larger problems. Doug
_______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
