You say; "I don't think it's really religious people stifling stem cell research. I think it's more corporations like the pharmaceuticals."
Wrong. It is the religious lobbyists who blocked it - the same ones who, in some states, block the freedom of a woman to choose an abortion.If you seriously think that religion plays no part, try running for president as an atheist. No, science finds a way. It has now bypassed the need for stem cells, by using ordinary cells to the same end. Science for the win.
And btw, pharmaceutical companies exist to have the best product on the market and, therefore, make money to invest in future/better products. It's called capitalism, which you appear to be against.
Your argument is simply ill-informed, reactionary, and frivolous.

I don't think it's really religious people stifling stem cell research. I think it's more corporations like the pharmaceuticals. Also the fact that it's government research that might actually help people so immediately it's on the chopping block.

I've seen some religious arguments against stem cells and they sure are stupid, but nothing has convinced me that's what's pulling the strings. Like the attacks on Planned Parenthood and it's funding isn't about religion to me, it's about Fuck the Poor.

Now factor in all the people in early life going without quality healthcare/dental and the chronic conditions it might lead to later in life that will eventually bite the taxpayer in the ass...

That's the part that never breaks the surface of this debate, keeping your populace healthy (and happy) pays itself back in a more healthy mid-late age person, capable of staying in the workforce (and ergo generating tax revenue) longer, self funding retirement as opposed to "leeching" off the system, less sick day absenteeism (or alternately, sick workers showing up, working below par and infecting co-workers) etc.

That's not socialism, that's smart.

I'd be amazed if no one ever actually quantified this as a cost/benefit analysis, but it wouldn't play well so I guess the point is moot.

And yeah, the state should regulate the medical and pharmaceutical industries against ludicrous profit taking from the most vulnerable. The current state of play in the US seems more akin to a mafia extortion racket than a service dedicated to maintaining and enriching the health of it's clientele...

"I'd like to meet....a boy called MILO"
Multilingual Insectoidal Lachrymosal Obtrusion

(Endorsed by David Cage, creator of video gaming soft-wear for the pharmaceutically-altered, and pussies.)

Sorry lurgee, Charlotte Iserbyt has not been popular with sifters American or otherwise due primarily to collective denial of her message-That message being that it is by design to create a large majority of dysfunctional cretins incapable of critical thinking who feed on a steady diet of bullshit like media news outlets for their "news of the world' in order for them to be herded more effectively by the state and her systems of control.

Think North Korea with coca-cola and Gucci, rap music and video games as primmers for the next generation of wage-slaves with a cult of personality of excess cash to spend on campain (misspelling intended) fleece and bullets, and you have the finished product ready for coffins and pharmaceutical oblivion.

Oh, and fuck this stupid bitch on TV Grimm, and fuck your leading title for your paltry embed. The few Americans left without their head up their own asses may be few, and we detest the same tools used as those of the television.

I was reading an editorial in the paper just this morning and the writer was stating that the connection between depression (along with other mental illnesses) and brain chemistry may not be as strong as we once believed it to be. The pharmaceutical industry and various mental health organizations were both promoting this, albeit for different reasons, big pharma for the obvious financial gains and mental health groups pushed it because people seem to accept mental health problems better if they believe it's because there is something physically wrong with someone.
I'm not sure how much I believe it yet, but I know from my own experiences that my own depression seems pretty much impervious to anything out there, I do take bupropion though. @shinyblurry, I'll echo many others here by saying that hope is a carrot at the end of a stick that's leading you off a cliff, hope is a sign on a storefront that's reminding you that disappointment will be back in five minutes, for many people with depression, hope is bullshit.
Now, I believe that you meant perfectly well with your thoughts of hope but I do think it's important to know that to many people suffering from depression might see that as a glib statement, implying that we can just turn our suffering on or off like a light switch.
Oh, and my black dog has three heads and is not to be fucked with, he thinks the one in this video looks like a pussy.

Hey Republicans. Don't forget, you invented the individual mandate. You tried to pass it into Federal law many times yourself. Don't be all ticked off just because some black guy finally did what you couldn't. Typical move the goal post behavior. What's changed since the Republican version that was endorsed by the insurance industry? Let's see... they now need to cover pre-existing conditions, yeah, that's horrible, making insurance companies cover sick people and not charge them more, how horrible... and they changed it from catastrophic coverage to comprehensive coverage, so now the insurance companies have to pay for far more services... hmm... I wonder why Republicans suddenly oppose their own idea? Perhaps because suddenly there is less profit in the suffering of millions of people? That is all that matters to Republicans, profit over people. To undue the damage caused by unions in giving people 40 hour work weeks and make people work 80+ hours a week again so that the fat rich cats can keep more and more of the limited resource called money... so that nice little income gap can continue to grow. Hey, perhaps someday soon the US will be like the old Soviet Union with long bread lines, the Republicans clearly want to see that. After all hundreds of them chanted "Let them die!" at the Republican debate... that was the moment that I decided even if I got my faith in god back, I'd rather be in hell then in heaven with people like that, apparently they forgot all the teachings of Jesus about how the rich can't get into heaven, how to help the needy and the poor, how to be lovers of peace and not war, how love was the greatest commandment, and everything else that the Republican party is opposed to.

I don't get why people get upset at the keep the insurance plan. It isn't the government shutting it down, it is greedy insurance companies shutting it down. It's like jobs going to China, people get mad at the government rather than the rich ass hole who sent the jobs oversees so his own personal profits could be higher. I seem to recall the people who are complaining, defended oil company profits by pointing out that per dollar earned/gross profit margin oil was down at 17 or so, while banks were number one followed by a small gap, pharmaceuticals were number two and insurance number three with a nice gap to number 4 and on to the rest of the list. So yeah, if changes in how they have to cover people means they might fall off that list of top 3 most profitable bushiness, then I would expect them to drop the less profitable plans to maintain their multi-billion dollar profit off the suffering of others so a few rich people can have a nice cozy life while millions suffer for their greedy gains.

Health insurance shouldn't be about huge profits. It should be about getting people the health coverage they need... of course I could also argue that the health care industry as a whole shouldn't be so profit driven... nor should the education required to train our healthcare workforce (nor education at all really)... We should have gotten what Obama promised in the first place, a single payer system, or at the very least a Government Option, rather than caving into the Republican Right and turning the money over to a multi-billion dollar industry... and now look, they still oppose it even though it was their idea... If they were going to oppose it no matter what, he should have made it worth everyone's while and given actual reform.

And hey, if you oppose it, come up with something better. Something that will help the millions of people working at places like retail and fast food that can't get employer sponsored coverage. Make sure every American is covered and can afford health care, not emergency treatment, but going to see a doctor for preventative care and affording any medication that the doctor may prescribe.

Not condoning the dick bikers here peeps, I was assessing the best option for the Rover's crew-The shotgun blast into the air was the, "scare the mob away and make em think twice" scenario-Mind you....It's not wise to fire a long arm through the sunroof into the air, but it beats the alternative should the mob's frustration escalate into a drag-out-and-beat-me scenario.

It wouldn't have gone this way had I been driving the Rover though, I would have not been caught-up in the middle of that pack and would have already let them pass me after-having waved them on.

Best not to rile bikers-The hardcore enthusists and lifetime fans of bikes already hate the fact that most motorists drive like dumbasses and the worst of them pay NO attention to rules of the road regarding motorcycles.

I rode motorcycles off and on for years and know the pain of cycling in both Texas and California, two VERY different vibes as Californians seem to have a better handle on motoring around bikers there being so many more on the road there than in Texas hence, a better consciousness on the roadway with regard to motorbikes.

This is New York. New York is NOT an automobile-dependent state and people there (I imagine) drive like inept, first-timers on pharmaceuticals with anger-management issues.

I don't think some people will realize this is a parody.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Legitimate-Rape-Pharmaceutical-Ad-the-best-birth-control

"Legitimate Rape" Pharmaceutical Ad-the best birth control! has been added as a related post - related requested by VoodooV.

His symptoms sound like side effects from a pharmaceutical commercial.

Upon first seeing this clip he's mashed I thought to myself, "What the fuck kinna drugs is Biden on?" He looks afternoon drunk or tanked on pharmaceuticals. He should never gotten on mic for that fucking interview. Mind you, the interview if you wanted to deconstruct it was a complete insult to humanity, to every anti OR pro gun ignoramus but, Joe.....Yer fucking high and this about to be on the internet and go fucking viral so, maybe get yer bullshit together a bit better and uhhh, the freakozoid that's interviewing you....Do you really wanna be seen with someone as inept with obvious socialization issues??

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.