Health care as an industry can compete in a capitalistic society if we are willing to accept that a lot of people will die from simple things that they could have survived if they could have basic treatment while others live a long time simply because they can afford it.

I suppose it's mandated because some people have no problem with the suffering of others while some people care.

Now having said that, I think it gets hard to say what treatments are unnecessary. Cosmetic surgery seems a simple case of unneeded if it's only serving vanity. It also gets harder to justify as treatments come out for more complex problems but are hugely expensive. I suppose it's also better for a society to be generally healthy as opposed to swarming with disease.

Obviously, there are a lot of problems with modern health care. A lot (some?) of people still don't have access or their HMO makes hoops that are so hard to jump through that a diagnosis or treatment is hard to get.

I'm not an expert on American health care because I'm not American. I have no solutions for health care dilemmas. Health care is tricky in that a lot of it is based on compassion and alleviating the suffering of others. It gets tricky when one tries to make a buck off of that.

the government on health care, in my opinion, should help with the so called orphan disease/disorders. you know the ones that don't have enough victims to make a profit from. or if there is a plague(this is not the right word) like problem.

This touches my point. When the gov't gets involved and sets mandates we lose the freedom of choice. If someone wants those 'unnecessary' surgeries then they should be able to find a plan that covers them.

I have no problem with the US gov't offering health care but do it in a 'fair' manner without the mandates. If gov't health care is so much better then why does it have to have a mandate in order to take over. In our capitalistic society that is considered a monopoly and such things currently get regulated. Sounds like a contradiction to me.



Yes, I will agree with that. I currently am trying to find health care for my wife.

There are essentially three problems that I see with modern health care. Too many regulations, too many frivolous lawsuits, and malpractice.

Isn't that why we have the Shriner's hospital? There are organizations that help with this.

Universal healthcare is an alternative to capitalism, not competing within it.

If landlording is so great, why can't it compete in a communist society?

Shriner's hospitals help kids who don't have any money. I don't know if they fund research into the orphan diseases.

Communist societies can't compete with free market capitalism and resorts to mandates in order to eliminate its competition.

Daniel, have you ever known a rich orphan?

you have the wrong idea here.


an orphan disease is a disease that doesn't affect too many people.


it has nothing to do with an orphan, parentless child.


A disease is known as rare (or orphan) if its incidence is such that it touches a too restricted population so that the development and the marketing of its treatment creates benefit.

WWW Link

In other words, landlording cannot compete in a communist society, hence the claim must be made that the communist society is to blame.

There is no such thing as "free market capitalism". Capitalism, like communism, requires certain rules that make any market un-free.

Try to imagine a capitalist society that does NOT _force_ people to accept a certain set of property rights. It's impossible.

Both systems have to force people to surrender to its rules. Whether these rules are called "the will of some god", "the will of the people", or "natural rights", doesn't matter.

Let's say we are a primitive society consisting of nomands that just start to farm. How do you make it a capitalist society without _forcing_ me to accept that, suddenly, land that I was allowed to roam freely on is "yours"?

If you do force me to accept your new rule, you have just forced capitalism onto the free market.

It doesn't matter how old and established the rule is. If you need force to apply the rule to people that disagree with it, you cannot claim that your system is a "free market".

BTW communist societies can compete with capitalist societies very well. Just imagine two families, one run as a capitalist society, one as a communist society. Guess which survives longer. (Hint: it's the family that applies "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs".)

You were right I did misunderstand.

As for the rare diseases I know Shriner's does work with such kinds of kids.

Yes I will agree your argument is valid but here in the US the premise is a capitalistic society.



That's my point. The US began Capitalistic and now many of the dems are wanting to institute Universal Gov't Health Care which unfairly breaks the rules of capitalism by drastically reducing or eliminating the competition.

It is not a question of competing.  It is a question of who is deciding what is necessary, and how necessary.  Right now, it is in the hands of doctors - and yes, HMOs.  Government health care would be in the hands of incompetant bureaucrats.

Who is best to decide? 

Obviously doctors are, but insurance companies do not trust them, so along came HMOs (with Government pushing).  They still have a reason to be good - it is called profit.  next step, JOhn Q. Public.  He has no incentive, just a 9-5 that he is paid for, and gets paid regardless of how good he is.