I can't speak to Canada's system, but I can weigh in on Medicare quality of care. My Grandmother, the woman who raised me, was diagnosed with lung cancer in her early 70's. Since I was helping to take care of her at the time, I got to see what I have to look forward to in my later life.

Consistently we had to wait for treatments to be approved and she was often delayed for patients that were not on Medicare. Additionally, every single therapy or quality of life aid was scrutinized beyond belief.

As an example, the doctor gave her a prescription for an oxygen tank and delivery system after they removed part of her lung that was not responding to chemo. Medicare refused to cover it without an 'oxygen saturation level test'. This 'test' was horrible. She had to try to breathe without the machine for multiple minutes, struggling and gasping for air. It was fucking brutal to watch, but the people that Medicare sent to verify didn't give a shit. They basically told me that if her saturation wasn't low enough after 15 minutes, she couldn't be covered for the machine. I couldn't take it, so I told them to fuck off out of her house and paid out of my own pocket for the rental.

These are just some examples, there were others before she died that made it quite clear that Medicare is not quality care. It's basically the bare minimum they have to give you to keep you alive. So this video comparing Canada's care to Medicare doesn't reassure me in the slightest and it's almost certainly an unfair comparison to their system. I can tell you I am dreading making the swap to Medicare in 20-25 years, let alone being forced into something similar sooner. As far as ACA, I don't really care. It's probably good for people who don't have good jobs or who are unemployed, but I will be more than happy to hang onto my extremely good insurance provided through my employment.

I'm right there with you on almost every point.
I can't blame Bob for being misled. All I can do it point out to him that he knows that partisan '24-7 news' organizations don't tell the truth, and he should not listen to them...any of them, but particularly Faux, (pronounced 'fox', but still meaning fake) which is by far the worst of them.
I do understand the reason they, and others, have been so successful. I think that's all the more reason to point out at any opportunity what they are (propaganda machines) and what they aren't (news) to remind anyone listening that if they MUST watch, remember it's only entertainment, not information.
It's a sad thing that one must do their own research on nearly any topic they wish to be informed on. Faux is not the only culprit by far, nor the only side that does it, but it is the face of the industry, so they get targeted the most (at least by me).
I will give the benefit of a doubt that that's why he's here, but it could just be because he enjoys 'debate' and knows he can always find someone to argue against his ideas here, not that that's a problem for me. It's a large part of why I enjoy the site (not the only reason by far), and why I certainly don't want those who I disagree with to leave. I have to hope they take my discussions in the spirit they are intended and not as personally insulting, which I understand is how they often could be interpreted.
Absolutely, people are different, and come to different conclusions and solutions to the same problems. If we can't discuss ALL these ideas (at least the reasonable ones based in reality) we don't evolve (or stunt ourselves) socially. I also agree the biggest issue is the actual facts and data being misrepresented by those with agendas, any agenda.
Yes, I do remember the birth of the teabaggers (indicated by the fact that I still call them teabaggers, their original 'clever' name until they learned what it means), but it was so quickly taken over by those with 'keep youre government hands off my medicare' and 'Obama is a Kenyan Nazi' signs and tri-cornered hats it's hard to recall that tiny time period I might have been with them.
I'm always saddened how easily groups of people end up being misled. The teabaggers had it right to start, even with their name. Their intent was to make the major parties 'suck our balls' and clean up, so.... ;-)
I also hope Bob will continue 'debating' with me. I was actually upset when Chingalera went off the rails. On those occasions when he was respectful we got along great and had an amazing amount in common (although rarely agreed, never on politics). Unfortunately he did not act respectfully often.

Damn it, now you got me lecturing right back! Lecture over.
Professor Newt will only be in his office from approximately 3:00-4:00 ;-)

It was 100% dead on for my life.

Married wrong person, sucks it took child and nasty divorce, child support I couldn't afford, my job going out of business. Debtors prison for unpaid child support. My plan out was file disability it was approved, medicare pad my child support and I'm free again and a misogynist, my ex a misandrist she disappeared with son, last I saw him he was 2, he would be 16 now and he doesn't know me and I can't find him.

I'm now dying of heart failure and will never see or know my son nor him me and if my ex was in front of me I'd murder her.

This video is definitely spot on.

@newtboy
whoa whoa scooter..slow yer roll.
i lived in lauderdale and there aint NOTHING conservative about that joint.huge gay community AND a huge new york jewish community.
so yeah..liberal.

and rich.im not talking "kinda rich" im talking 'lets pull our 5 story yacht to have dinner on an over-priced intercoastal posh eatery" (which i worked at quite a few).

so i dont know what set you off,when i am speaking from actual experience.
was it the word "liberal"?
ok..let me rephrase...
obscenely rich liberals who dont want to actually SEE poor,homeless people.
they want them..you know..over there------------>
the whole "not in my back yard" thing.

yes..they donate handsomely.
yes..they gift furniture and other essentials.
yes..they help sponsor food drives (but over there------->)

so im not saying they are bad people.
i am saying they are hypocrites.
because THEY are the most vocal in local government,and while they may be generous in their charities they are also the ones who push to get those icky,unshowered homeless people out of plain sight.

cuz homeless people are icky.
what would their vacationing austrian family think???

and since tourism is the MAIN source of income in the lauderdale/boca/west palm area,the local government does what it does best.

criminalize the poor.

so it wasnt a case of "starve the poor".
it was a case of "hey,we see poor people..and in PUBLIC"

the horror......
poor people...
in public...
they must need therapy now.

i live on the west coast now (and not the cool naples west coast) and yes..this bunch of dimwitted morons who retired from middle management in order to over pay for their golf privileges and get all their news from FOX are exactly the demographic you are talking about.

not to mention the gulf coast seems to be a white trash mecca.

and yes..there IS an evangelical baptist church on every corner (true story).

and it is with great sadness that i have to admit to being neighbors with these very same dimbulbs who just re-elected rick scott.the same man who paid out the largest medicare fraud in HISTORY!

so thanks for reminding me i live in a mudpit of retards....thanks newt.

im gonna go crawl into a ball now and cry myself to sleep humming the doors "this is the end".

Teabaggers are not 'affiliated' with the Libertarian Party? WOW! That's not what I see. When I see 'Libertarian' rallies on TV or at my local court house, they are filled with idiots in tri corner hats with tea bags attached and with poorly spelled signs saying things like 'keep your guverment hands of my medicare' and 'get the fed away from my soshial security' and "No Moar Regulashuns". Perhaps the "Tea Party" party has technically 'joined' the Republicans, but many Teabaggers are Libertarian, and nearly all are libertarian.
Actually I think you asked if I heard the idiot in the video say it...but I get your point, you obviously believe as he does. At the same time, you complained that:
" Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?"...seeming to call for better regulations that would stop those issues. IF that's what you were saying, I could agree with you, but you are now backing away from that interpretation of what you said...so what DID you mean by all that...that those things are terrible, and will be solved by removing government regulation and enforcement? If THAT'S what you mean, please explain how that works.

EDIT: I see, the issue here is you've swallowed the 'corporate power/irresponsibility comes solely from the government, and will only be solved by removing government' idea hook line and sinker. I have not. I do not see the problem of corporate misconduct being solved, or even helped by less regulation/oversight. The very idea flies in the face of logic, just like the 'self regulation' fallacy.
Never happened, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Gee, someone here is able to present a point w/o resorting to juvenile name-calling.

Lucky, imagine if you were a doctor and all you got to see on videosift were videos of doctors misbehaving...screwing with medicare, cutting off the wrong foot, leaving scalpels inside people's abdomens and you tried to say...hey, this is rare, there might be more to the story, that doctor was censured, etc.

In my 30 yrs of LE experience I don't see people getting beat up, or shot, or assaulted, or arrested for no reason.

But some people come along here and besmirch every single LE officer on the planet and say they are all corrupt, etc.

I have to defend the cops or at least show that these instances of misbehavior are rare.

Some of these commenters here are so angry you have to wonder what happened in their personal lives that they have all of this animus toward authority figures, which cops are.

See, I've worked with cops and I see what they do. The people here see a video and think they know everything about everything.

Just saying.

Also, I am not saying cops should be able to do anything at any time, etc. I believe cops should operate under the law and policies set up by their department.

"Its been under construction since the 70s with subsequent generations adding to it and its getting bigger every year..." I didn't know that beavers also have a medicare/medicaid program

Not true, at least not the primary reason.

The reason they're high is because pharmaceutical companies can get away with charging high prices and reaping high margins, because of their strong competitive position, margins some 50% higher in the US than the EU.

Source

See page 12 - Pre R&D margins are 65% in the US to 43% in the EU.

A big reason for this is the lack of a universal public option, only Medicare exists for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor. With a universal public option like in most developed countries, the monopsony buying power of the government for a much larger part of the population would force down margins.

I think it's because Quebec has a shortage of doctors because Quebec in it's infinite stupidity and xenophobia do not allow doctors to practice unless they speak high level french (the same reason I can't get Permanent Residency here while other Aussie friends in BC and Ontario had no issue). I guess we simply didn't have a serious shortage in Australia. It's so easy to find a GP, I guess it might be harder to find one that Bulk Bills (medicare takes the entire cost of consultation) for low income earners.

My experience at hospitals is limited. When i got hit on the head by a cricket bat, i had to wait 2 hours, I think (was a long time ago), to get stitches. And when I had my tonsils out, I had to wait 6 months for the elective surgery because we didn't have private insurance.

My girlfriend had to go to the ER when she had mono here, we had to wait an hour or two before she was seen by a doctor. While we were there, the hospital was fucking decrepit, the waiting room was freezing (there was a lady who had a broken arm and she was violently shivering), and nearer the end of the day (my GF had to have an IV drip so we had to wait around there all day to see if it helped her) an old lady was called up and as she was walking past she said she had been there since 8 in the morning and they had literally forgotten about her.

One of my friends has an issue with kidney stones, they build up and he has to have surgery to get them out. He had a procedure booked for I don't know how long, went to the hospital and they told him they didn't have any beds left and he had to wait another week.

The Jewish General has now been instructed to turn away off-island patients. It has the best cancer treatment facility of any hospital, so people with cancer are now instructed to kindly fuck off.

The new, mega hospital in Vendome is waaaay over budget and time, and people (particularly old people) can't even get to it from the metro station right near it!

I'd love to move to Vancouver...

You are free to disagree with me, but you cannot disagree while agreeing with me. And make no mistake, we DO agree. If I was unclear, be like @ChaosEngine and ask me to clarify before you respond.

I said two things in my post. One directly and concisely pointed out my view. Universal Healthcare is a must for everyone born or who have come to the states! (This includes Illegal Immigrants, but that is a whole other topic.) It should be everyone's freedom.

The second thing I said in my post was more implied (But it wasn't vague.) I said it wasn't a right, but then went on to explain the difference between "rights" and "freedoms." The conclusion? It should be everyone's freedom. Here is why I feel the way I do:

1a-As you say it is cheaper, and Medicade and Medicare prove that here in the states. No overhead, no profit to be made.

1b-Every human being deserves it as a "freedom." It is just compassionate and human to give it.

2-The second point, as to why it should be a freedom instead of a right is two pointed as well.

2a-It can be willingly given away or two it taken away in extenuating circumstances. "Rights" are imposed, by force if necessary, ironically. Yet a man deserves to be able to end his own life, with dignity, in his own house if he so chooses. But if Healthcare is a "right," as opposed to "freedom," he does not get that choice. He has to enjoy his terminal cancer. A mother's "freedom" to give home remedies to her deathly ill child, also, can be taken away. That is a good thing for the children. Yet honey and alfalfa would be the top cure for sick and dying children in some households if healthcare were a right.

2-There are some classes I don't think deserve Healthcare. To me Julie Schenecker does not. Nor does Kenneth Jackson. He, for example, denied "healthcare" to a woman when he raped her. And just for good measure he then slashed her throat because she was screaming. I know him and he is not insane or someone to be pitied. He just doesn't give a fuck about human dignity or rights. If he were released he would gladly do it again. (I do believe he has the "right" to a fair trial, so a trail should be forced.)

In fact inmates all around the country hurt themselves just to make life difficult for guards, and they know they will be fixed up. They inflict suffering upon others, and then cost money to taxpayers so they can do it again. So no, I don't think the worst of the worst deserve it. (Even though, ironically, they get it far better than those on the streets who try hard to make it.)

So in summary, we agree on the most prolific and most important parts...at least here in Lawdeedaw land...

Can't help but think that we're setting us up for a big wave of very sick people on medicare. When the things they have require a lot of therapy and recovery, perhaps multiple surgeries to fix....where as if it had been caught 20 years ago prior to them being on medicare it might have been quite simple to address....but they didn't have insurance so it wasn't feasible.

Plus you look at the insane amount of "defense" and "spying" costs we have in the US, and that stuff keeps getting increased and cheered on like it's a cure for everything.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

dude,
i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

i was hoping to avoid the myriad directions and confluence of misinterpretation in regards to political and economic understandings may take.

we agree more than we disagree,believe it or not.
we agree we do not have a free market.
we agree that what we DO have is corporate socialism.

the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged into one giant behemoth (plutocracy).

for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-adam smith
we have neither.
IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
at least not in totality.

i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism".its almost an allergic reaction and it bears no base in reality.
should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market?
police?
firefighters?
roads?

i feel this is where we diverge in our understandings.
to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your arguments you disagree.
ok..we both have that right.

another item we appear to diverge is HOW we view the system in place.
its all in the perspective.

you made a very strong argument on the current state of preventive medicine,health food stores and the like.
but lets examine where that perspective came from shall we?

the rich,the affluent,people with money and careers.
THEY can afford all those things you mentioned.

what about the poor,the working poor and the destitute?
where do THEY find the money to purchase items at the GNC,or at an organic food market?

what happens to them?

look man,
this is no simple issue and if i implied that it was i apologize.
my argument was not to suggest some utopian fantasy,as i assume yours was not either.
my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized society.
in my opinion health care is one of them.

i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you.
so my perspective is born from that perspective.
in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill.

the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no better,possibly worse in such a system.

you mentioned cuba.
ok...point.
how about france?germany?denmark?

again,i am not suggesting my idea is some utopian wonderland.this issue is complicated.the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in place.

two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate drug prices.

i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit health care will still have similar results as our current because the poor and working poor population is growing.

i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done collectively.
some we already do:police,fire,public schools etc etc.
i think many europeans got it right.
its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do.

thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few hours but i dont want to bore you.
always a pleasure my friend.
namaste

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

@Trancecoach
i am going to have to disagree with your "free market" argument.(i snooped on your commentary on @eric3579 page).

and here is why:

since we both agree that what we have now is NOT a free market health care system and it is rife with corruption.we can move on to the real meat of the argument.

in my opinion the basic flaw in your argument is the base question.
free market or socialized medicine?

this is the wrong question.
because the questions ignores the very essence which we should be addressing.
the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"?
NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?

so,
what IS the purpose of the health care system?

ah...
see where i am going with this?
not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time.

because they are incompatible.
you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care.

my family is in the medical field (as i know you are as well),and i have had this discussion with them many,many times.

when i have asked them "what is the best way to optimize a persons long term health"?
they have always answered,without exception "preventive care"."early diagnosis"."education on the benefits of diet and exercise".

and i suspect you would agree with their assessment.

but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?

if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism.
where is the profit in a healthy society?
answer:there is none.
disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine.

cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis.

it is ineffecient and morally despicable and the costs are counted in dead bodies.

but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet.

so if we used your "free market" model instead of the corporate welfare system we are using now.
the results would STILL be the same.
because BOTH systems are for-profit.

now,
let us examine medicare.
runs on a 3-5% overhead,while in contrast the health insurance industry runs between 25-35% and are..for-profit.

IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis.
the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering.

this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades.

i dont feel i have to list them because i respect your intellect.

i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other.
a corporation cares nothing for my health nor yours.they care about profit.

and preventive care is NOT profitable,yet death and disease are.

so.
socialism>free market