And no, we do NOT have “by far the best health care in the world.” I lived in France for 12 years, and even though I was not a legal resident for six of those years, I got the best health care I ever had in my life. Maybe I couldn’t afford the kind of great health care YOU can afford, Lisa Daha. But in France, I got the great health care people here only dream of. And cheap. Even at full price, when I was not a legal resident, everything there costs a quarter of what it costs here.

Free first class care for everyone in France is a reality. I guess you think I’m living in a fantasy, eh? Um, no. I lived in France, and paid taxes that paid for my health care. It was so worth it. It was not more expensive than paying taxes and paying for private health insurance over here. It was actually cheaper in the long run. Plus, everyone else benefited from my taxes when I wasn’t in medical need. In France I was my “brother’s keeper.” Sound familiar? Call that socialist?

In fact, the *lack* of competition in healthcare is a big issue. In over 40 states, a single health insurance company has over 40% of the market. As a result, they do not have to compete anymore, and can basically set their own rules.

Capitalism is extremely (ruthlessly?) efficient, and will favor the best use of capital. This benefits us enormously by driving innovation and productivity. The perversion of capitalism happens in two forms:
1. Winner take all – When the winner of the competition achieves market dominance, the self-correction of the market fails. They can starve the competition and destroy the dynamic.
2. Perverse incentives – Capitalism cares about profits, which means spending the least for the greatest revenue. This drives productivity, but often by compromising other objectives. In areas like education, justice, and health, there are drivers which are not strictly profits, including the concept of universality. These tend to be compromised.

We live in a capitalist country, and competition is our main function. In order to avoid the perversions of competition, however, we have to manage these two factors. We cannot allow market dominance that removes capitalism, as it simply substitutes the inefficiency of one bureaucracy, government, with the inefficiency of a large corporation. We also must enforce basic guidelines, like universal, equal access to health, education, and justice, so that competition occurs on a playing field that does not destroy the basic goals of our society.

If we manage these outcomes, we can let the capitalist system find the right way to deploy capital, and it will succeed.

who will win antibiotics and/or detergents or bacteria and will mankind be smart enough to come up with something new before the bacteria can triumph (at least for a while)

by the way I consider the answer to that question a lot more decisive than the latest cancer drug. No matter how wonderful such a drug may be for the individual sufferer whether it exists or not does not make a huge difference for health care world wide.

so no reason to malign America for having the same problem as every other advanced hygienic medical treatment outfit.

last time I was in hospital for a small job there was advice for patients posted everywhere on how to help the personnel to keep the threat in check.

American hospitals are hotbeds for really nasty bacteria so it is not uncommon for patients to get something really bad, and oft times deadly from being IN the hospital.

Guess what, some Americans already have government funded health care and they are pretty happy with it. No one has ever turned it down. They get to choose their own doctors, have no pre-existing exclusions, and the premiums are moderate.

Have you ever heard of Medicare? I sure hope you keep true to your principles and turn it down. Oh, and Social Security, too. That’s another one of those gov’mint programs.

By the way, the reason that Medicare is in as much trouble today is because Republicans keep dumping other groups and benefits in without providing funding. Nixon added the disabled; in the 80s they added kidney disease sufferers, the the Bush Republicans gave the farm to insurance corps and pharmaceutical corporations, all with out adding any funding.

I guess the Republicans love a public plan, Medicare when they want to increase its coverage, but when the Democrats have a plan, they scream like banshees and cluck like chickens.

There is a gut question you have to ask when you argue the side you are taking. Do you think health care is something that everyone should have (like clean water) or something that you earn (like a car)?

Healthcare insurance these days costs about $12-20k for a family per year (estimated to rise to $24k by 2020). You can get cheaper monthly with huge deductibles, but the costs are still there, just paid differently.

The median income in the US is around $50k (2007 census bureau). After taxes that is around $40k+. That makes health care around 25-50% of net income. This is more than housing. At minimum wage, it is 100% of income. So do those people get sick and die? Get maimed? It is really an ethical question as much as an economic one.

Regardless of public or private delivery, an enormous percentage of Americans simply cannot pay for the health care they need to live. I am not talking about extreme cases like cancer or accidents, I am talking about their share of the risk pool.

So the question is really simple and painful. Do we, as a civilization, “socialize” costs and have the wealthier folks pay for the poorer, or do we simply abandon them? Is health care a right or a privilege?

the patent lawyer even claimed that his fight changed a fundamental part of patent law allowing for the first time naturally grown stuff to be patented (forgive me I am a bureaucrat) — thereby rehabilitating chamomile but opening the door for patented crop seeds so farmers are not allowed to harvest their own seeds anymore?

It might have to do with Big Pharma. They might want to discredit traditional remedies as quackery, or else control the market when such remedies are approved.

Silke, would you take a look at the video link I left in my comment at the post titled: The Value of (Not Having) a Public Plan … I’d be interested in what you have to say about the story told in the video

what baffles me about these things is why can they not do the verifying and approving without all that maligning interlude?