On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 01:20 +0100, Dr Chris R. Tame wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Laird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Good evening, Frank! > > > >On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:06:02 -0700, Frank Reichert > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>So, why would you even suggest that the poor, in a free-market > >>context, would not have access to medial aid? Doctors Without > >>Borders is only one organization that comes to mind, that > >>routinely reaches around the globe to meet medical demands when > >>various governments, using force, can't meet the challenge. > > > >But what of the poor right here in good old U.S.A., Frank? The free-market, > >and pretty much anyone else, is an abyssmal failure when it comes to meeting > >the health care needs of poor and lower-middle class families in the United > >States. > > Laughable. You do not have a free market in medicine the USA. You have a > corporatised, restrictionist and guild protectionist system.
I think we have a disconnect in the term "free market" fro what I've seen of the discussion (limited view I've seen of it. I've been quite busy remodelling my house of late). I, at least, consider a free market to be one without government regulation. Now it certainly can be argued that incorporation is indeed a violation of free market economics as it provides a protected class of businesses - those who incorporate vs. those who do not. To that argument, I would agree. The corporation is itself a violation of free market economics. It is not a natural market creation, but a government imposed one. In many ways the corporation is to the market what government regulated marriage is to the market of mates and "significant others". Cheers, Bill -- Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
