They’re productive (or not) for their own benefit, they’re not my property that I can decide what lifestyle they should live.

Remember? We’re talking about free people, free markets.

How does market can fail? After all free markets are us, free people making their own free choices.

Markets never failed me. Law of supply/demand is a natural event like gravitation and like nature abhors vaccum.

If you have difficulty with it, put in place of health care any other business, than you will see if logic still holds.

So, let’s say burden of people driving too much (!) is excessive use of brakes and other auto parts. According to your logic that should increase cost of repairs, parts etc? And as a consequence, costs rise for the rest of us ( the ones not using cars too much), gradually crowding out growth in wages….

Of course this gibber does not make any sense!

Excessive cost is possible only with external (out of market) manipulation, made by government’s use of force i.e. regulation, taxation, permits, favoritisms etc.

Without government restrictions, like ban on out of state insurance purchases, to mention just one, cost of health care would be drastically lower.

But then, people would be too happy and politicians would have difficulty to convince population how important government lawyers are. And content people are not too willing to look for a master to protect them.

In regard to American health care, please name other country in a world with more advanced technology in medicine, so far the best (I didn’t say the cheapest – that wouldn’t make sense) technology used by millions (known to humans) is in USA.

That is fact, not an opinion.

Read more original Ayn Rand, and not just about her. Something more then Wikipedia. The best protection of somebody’s welfare and wellbeing is in our Constitution with its emphasis on individual (human) rights which can not exist without property rights.

Sorry for being little harsh on you but I’m getting sick and tired of recent growth of cynicism and “spread the wealth” mentality. It reminds me of socialist Germany and USSR of 1930’s, their leaders also just wanted to spread the wealth – the end results are known too well.

You can expand your knowledge on externalities here:

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=310

You said:

“….Access to the highest quality care (the best technology “known to humans” as you say) is determined by the quality of your insurance coverage. This is clearly reflected in the outcomes data, which show substantial disparities based on income and coverage…)

Daa…that is very deep revelation!… maybe to you, not to any rational person.

Quality of any product made by humans is reflected in a price. Any product.

Name one product which is better in quality and more desired by people and at the same time cheaper then poor quality and less desirable one. Food, automobile, house?

Regarding the obesity, again you’re showing strong desire to own people. I don’t own these people (or any other group of people) so they don’t own me their productivity.

They’re productive (or not) for their own good, they’re not my property that I can decide what life they should live.

Remember? We’re talking about free people, free markets.

And could you please name the goods and services which some people (market) can not find in a market.

How does markets can fail? After free markets are us, we the people making free choices.

Markets never failed me.

What you are saying is similar to what Clinton, in his second term, said when asked why he doesn’t support returning excess money from government to people (the owners), the tax cuts. He said he would support it if he knew that people would spend their money the right way (meaning his way)!

You’re saying similar; markets (people) failed me because they don’t produce what I want.

You’re absolutely wrong, in a free market (people) always produces what other people want to buy. People are always right in their choices.

But I understand how people can fail you; they don’t want YOU, meaning they won’t voluntarily spend their own money on your ideas. That’s why you want to use force (government) to compel them to live their lives “the right way”, meaning your way, according to your model.

This is like saying your life belongs to you but I (or my gang, party) want to decide what you spend YOUR money on, and if you don’t agree with me, too bad, I have bigger guns then you.

I wouldn’t call that jumping to erroneous conclusions. You’re a collectivist and you (or your representative) want to “own” people, meaning their money.

Obviously for their own good!

thank you for your clarification.

Helps.

Work presses today, but may comment more later.
In the meantime, I am really enjoying reading
what the others have said, including you.
Food for thought.

thanks again
elle

My point was simply that private decisions in a market environment represent the best way to allocate goods and services, except in cases in which the nature of those goods and services is such that they are undersupplied. These are cases of market failure. Economists of the left and the right acknowledge these as realities.

Another weakness of an unfettered market is the propensity to produce “externalities.” These represent the costs (or benefits) of an activity that affect individuals or groups not party to a transaction, and which are generally not captured in the price. You are correct that a person’s decision to smoke cigarettes is a strictly private decision, yet it may nevertheless impose costs on others, such as higher dry cleaning bills (you obviously reject “second hand smoke” as a credible risk). Why should one person be forced to pay higher costs because of another’s private decision?

The fundamental issue here is not whether freedom is more desirable than tyranny — freedom is obviously better and your mischaracterization of my position as anti-freedom a red herring. At issue, rather, is how we as a society seek to balance the costs and benefits of competing private decisions. If I run a paper mill and privately decide to dump effluent into a river, I am imposing costs on the fisherman downstream, whose livelihoods have been threatened by damaged fish stocks. Yet their decision to fish in that river undermines my ability to profit from my paper mill. How do we reconcile this?

I also encourage you to rethink your statements about the American healthcare system, which are simply wrong and betray a deep lack of familarity with the sector and its financing. Access to the highest quality care (the best technology “known to humans” as you say) is determined by the quality of your insurance coverage. This is clearly reflected in the outcomes data, which show substantial disparities based on income and coverage.

Regarding the obesity epidemic, whether or not this reflects individual choices, lifestyles, poor education, or excess consumption of processed food is not the point. Rather, the burden of obestity and its sequelae is substantial, increasing healthcare costs for the rest of us while reducing workplace productivity and affecting overall economic growth. A case in point: as the burden of ill health grows, the costs of treatment rise. As a consequence, health insurance costs rise, gradually crowding out growth in wages. Over the last decade, median wage growth has been flat, but health insurance premiums have risen 6% to 12% a year. In other words, the collective effect of millions of private decisions has a had a deleterious effect on the economic welfare of millions of Americans.

Unfortunately, Ayn Rand doesn’t offer us much guidance with regard to how best to balance the implications of one man’s private consumption decisions on the welfare or wellbeing of another.

i was just saying that concluding upon NeverSummer comment, read his and mine posts entirely.

sorry for being not so obvious.

Where do you think slavery came from, in the first place? Someone was convinced that it was Ok and a good idea.

That is why the very media that gets criticized may be our salvation…we can , thru media, stay informed, and remain true to the NOTenslaved path in things.

I am very social, in the arts, and in my church, and love life and its ways – political and church friends and caring mommies are all saying that they fear that the solutions to the pressing issues today may be a sneaky way to turn to Socialism in our Government system.

Then, one morning, we wake up and HATE it, and it’s too late!

help!

elle