Well, if we're still talking about heart transplant surgery here (which is, after all, what kicked off this whole latest tempest), it stands to reason that the surgery is taking place in a full blown hospital, yes?
I could dispute it when I got the bill
But I'm growing tired of trying to explain to you that every system is vulnerable to corruption. You seem to think that businesses can be forced to act in the public's best interest, and that somehow the government can force businesses to do this, but the government can't act on the government in the same way. It boggles my mind to think that you draw such a bizarre distinction. The fact that you think you can come up with a system that brings prices down to the point where everyone gets the care they need, while not explicitly funding care for the poor, is ridiculous.
I don't think your hypotheical system is any more flawed that hypothetical "single payer" systems. I just think it's ridiculous that you think your system has figured out all the angles, and that other systems are incapable of doing so. The only thing your system has going for it is something I've already pointed out, the way to keep capitalism in check is to force it to fail, and it's a lot easier to force that failure than it is to ensure a socialist type system's success. However, the more regulation you add to a capitalist starting point, the closer you get to other systems (not just socialism, but other philosophies as well), and the more you get into other systems, the more you're reliant on being able to succeed in order to avoid catastrophic failure. Arguably, the United States is much too far away from pure capitalism to aim for anything less than a successful implementation of it's goal, rather than relying on shooting down capitalists who get too powerful for the public's good.
- Show all