Do You Think Obama is a Socialist... Do You Care?

[akuma587]

Sqrl said:

akuma587 said:

You are misframing the argument for healthcare reform.  It just as much relies on the fact that the private market is not providing resources efficiently and is dragging down the entire economy as a result.

A lot of it has to do with fiscal responsibility and the health of the overall economy as well.  The proposed healthcare reform will do a great deal to reduce the amount of money the government will spend on healthcare through programs like Medicare and Medicaid in the future.  Are you against the government spending less money?

Furthermore, the healthcare sector of the economy is growing at an unsustainable rate.  Its on track to become 25% of our entire GDP while other countries are looking at half that number while giving better healthcare to more people.  How is that an efficient allocation of resources?

Shouldn't capitalists want the market to be as efficient as possible, even if that means the government gets involved?  Should private citizens have to defend themselves from attacks for foreign countries simply because some people will benefit more from national defense than others?  Should private citizens have to pay for their own police protection simply because some people will benefit more from police protection than others?

I'm not misframing it in the slightest - I'm highlighting the part that concerns me the most, namely the agenda being pushed by liberals for nationalized healthcare.  I would certainly agree there is more to it than what I covered but I wasn't done (as I mentioned in the "(snip)" excerpt) and I don't have to talk about the whole issue to talk about some of it - that rule wasn't in the memo anyways.

In any case, capatalism and free markets are not about peak effeciency at all costs, that would be centralized government planning.  Its about acheiving effeciency through natural selection - a process whereby you might experience enefficient forms and periods but by allowing the market to choose the path forward you acheive effeciency again while avoiding the pitfalls that come with allowing an agenda to shape the market.

This is why the auto-bailout is an affront to capatalism and free markets - the people and the market voted with their dollars to say NO to these corporations and the bailout declares that vote null and void in the name of "saving jobs".  And then the same people decry capatalism - see they had to save those jobs!  It doesn't work!  No - you had to let those jobs go away and let the market set the direction is what you needed to do.

So...why has the healthcare market continued to become more inefficient for the past 50 years?  I don't really see how that is an isolated incident of inefficiency.

And why should the government provide police protection and national defense but not healthcare?  Why should the government require driver's license but not regulate healthcare? 

No one ever said people have a constitutional right to healthcare.  I mean you don't have a constitutional right to wear red t-shirts, eat peanut butter, or drive a Toyota Corolla.  There is nothing that stops the government from taking those rights away and banning that activity.  You are mischaracterizing the debate.

I mean do insurance companies have a constitutional right to drop people from their health plans after they have been paying for 20 years?  Do they have a constitutional right to arbitrarily refuse to offer certain people healthcare?  Do hospitals have a constitutional right to charge people without insurance more money than those with insurance?  Are those rights worth protecting?  Why can't the government take those rights away?

And what does an auto-bailout have anything to do with healthcare?  Why can the government order multi-billion dollar fighter jets but not offer people healthcare?  Doesn't your argument really consist of what you don't want the government to do?  I mean a lot of people would like it if the government didn't have so many police running around or such a big military.

I mean should we just get rid of the Food and Drug Administration and not regulate any food that comes into our borders or is sold in stores?  That's intervention in the free market.  We should just let natural selection weed out the companies who produce tainted food and weed out the consumers who are too stupid to buy the more expensive food and die from it. 

Should we let companies dump toxic waste on people's front lawns?  That's intervention in the free market.  We should weed out those companies by letting angry mobs retaliate against them and punish the people stupid enough to live in those neighborhoods with those companies.

Should we stop printing money and revert to a barter system?  Printing money and having a central bank is intervening in the free market.  We should cut out the middle man and let people trade their goods and services for the goods and services they want.

All of those things make the market more efficient.  So why can the government do those things but not get involved in healthcare?  The Constitution says that the government can regulate interestate commerce.  There is nothing in the Constitution the Founding Fathers drafted that stops them.