inherent in free market is the freedom to say no, the freedom to refuse service to some customers.

[unblock]

how on earth is this ok when it comes to medicine?

i submit that it is completely immoral for any country to structure an industry in such as way that some people are denied essential services.

if private industry is leaving people to die or suffer without essential services, the government MUST step in and, one way or another, get those services to those in need. let there be all manner of discussion as to the method, but i refuse to accept that freedom, capitalism, private industry, or whatever compels us to stand back as a nation and let people die before us for the sake of outsized profits achieved through denial of essential services.

[rusty charly]

1. But, these people want to return to

(some perverted, rewritten Christian version of) the Old Testament.

[unblock]

7. it rather seems like feudalism to me

especially with the masses of poor people cheering on their uber-rich lord of the manor as if the only way to wealth and happiness is by giving even more to their feudal lord.

[rusty charly]

8. Worked so well for the Irish

in 1740.

[Taverner]

9. Pre Magna Carta at least

[Traveling_Home]

2. Govt passes laws that limit the ability of the private sector to say no

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, American with Disabilties Act are but two examples.

[unblock]

4. yes, the government intervenes in the "free market" all the time.

usually for the benefit of big donors to political campaigns, but every once in a while for the benefit of the little guy.

it boggles my mind that some people can find virtue in the "free market" when it decides to do obviously immoral things, such as discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. sometimes reason and justice prevails and we have good laws like those you mention.

other times we have insurance industry lobbies insisting that private profit is somehow more moral than public health.

[Salviati]

3. My take on it is a bit reversed.

Free markets work best when we, in our role as consumers, have the freedom to not consume. In the cases where we don't, where we are compelled to consume, i.e. basic needs for survival and the functioning of society, the seeds are sown for failures of the free market.

In some sectors, the free market can still work efficiently, these are typically places where there are many providers, no natural monopoly, and the cost to enter the market aren't that great. Light regulation to insure basic safety are really all that is needed for food and clothing as an example.

In other areas, where a natural monopoly or high barriers to market entry exist, then the sector should be socialized, or at least regulated to the extent that it is practically socialized. E.g. utillties, police/fire departments, and health care.

[unblock]

5. agreed, that's the flip side of it.

true capitalism requires freedom of information and genuine freedom of choice. in the case of medicine, patients can't really shop around....

[Laelth]

6. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[IndianaGreen]

10. Socialists believe that health care is a fundamental human right, as is water

Capitalist ration health care, and they are about to do the same to water which is becoming a scarce resource.

[Vidar]

11. So it's the insurance companies which are the real death panels.

[RepublicanElephant]

12. british politician tony benn interview in michael moore's "sicko":

"Choice depends on the freedom to choose."
http://www.bennites.com/SICKO.html

"But Sicko is more than a potent weapon in the battle for single-payer, because in a deeper sense, the movie isn't really about healthcare. At its best, it uses healthcare as a kind of gateway drug to much harder stuff: a robust social democratic vision, articulated eloquently by legendary British Labour gadfly Tony Benn, who waxes poetic in the film about the radical promise of democracy to move power from the "wallet to the ballot." It's the extension of the logic of democracy into provisioning of public goods that provides the philosophical justification for socialized medicine. "The principle," as Benn says, "is solidarity."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/hayes

[PVnRT]

13. That's what makes it "uniquely American"

[truedelphi]

14. There already is a legal mechanism, called "wrongful death" but

The insurers see to it that being able to use that charge is very difficult.

And these days, the hospital will simply erase that portion of the medical record that would substantiate the claim.

[Gregorian]

15. This makes me think that Obama should have tried a different intro to this debate.

Because after all, he isn't taking anything away. If it had been possible, he should have quietly introduced a new structure for health care. I suppose that isn't possible. But the way the corporate zombies are screaming out their mantra, it's as though Obama is going to take something from them. Which of course isn't the case. They aren't going to be denied any more than they already are, as you pointed out.

In fact, I think he actually did that. Forget I ever posted this. Obama isn't the problem. It's just hard to have an argument about something that's not an argument.

America has issues. As in, it needs to grow up. I hope we can do that without the massive suffering that it took for Europe to become the mature place that it is, if I may say so.