Always have to wonder… was there ever a time you actually had any John Galt in you or did you pick the name just so you could besmirch it with your pathetic posting.

astonerii on December 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Once again, when you have read and studied a third of Rand’s material, please feel free to comment on my name. Until then, you might want to try listening to people who know better than you.

Notice how it’s always the bitter Mark McKinnons, David Frums and the other No Labels squatters who claim to make the “conservative case” for failed socialist policies…

fitzfong on December 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I believe that the primary objective of these “conservatives” has been to destroy conservatism from within. Look at what they have done. They have co-opted conservatism and completely redefined it to the point that it is hardly distinguishable from modern liberalism.

Bruce,

Can you explain to the readers here what happens when the price of any good or service goes to zero? Since you didn’t I will. When the price of a good or service goes to zero the demand becomes nearly infinite. In a true free market economy prices are used as a means to distribute scarce goods and services. If the demand for health care at no cost to the consumer is infinite but the supply of health care resources (doctors, nurses, nurse aids, hospital beds) is finite, how are health care resources to be distributed? The answer (which you conveniently left out of your opinion piece) is that it will be rationed. So why don’t you explain to your readers how well health care will be rationed without consumer choice. Explain how flexible and dynamic health care delivery will be without competition.

By the way, before any of you mentions a word about the failure of the American “free market” health care system, please note that US system is anything but free market. In a true free market there would be absolutely no intervention into the health care market by government. There would be no government regulations or restrictions with regards to who can provide health care. For example there would be no licensure laws. There would be no requirements for expensive FDA approvals in order to bring drugs to the market. There would be no government subsidies of any kind (roughly half of health care is paid for by government).

If you want to reduce cost, de-link health insurance from employers and government then spin off the FDA into its own corporation charged with getting the same job done only more cheaply.

our health care is expensive because of government, not in spite of it.

Charlemagne on December 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Exactly.

– I’ve always been curious: Why is a monopoly considered the ultimate evil if it’s run by a CEO, but the perfect system if it’s run by a politician or political bureaucrat?

tbrosz on December 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Because all politicians and bureaucrats are honest and pure of heart. /

@ShainS A very minor point. You’re equating fisc cons with libertarians. They’re not the same.

tommy71 on December 25, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Fair point, Tommy. I’m thinking in theory and with what is claimed by the leaders of the present-day movements (of “fiscal conservatives” and small-L “libertarians”), but in practicality and reality — you are correct.

Thank you for pointing out the clarification …

In comparing costs, you cannot look at what the government spends on health care because it does not factor in the beauracracy and waste. Apple and oranges. In the private sector spending all the levels of administration are included while in government spending much of that is not, collection is in the IRS, administration is elsewhere, etc.

The innovation costs of research others made is a good point. It is sad that when we socialize medicine enough to stifle that, there is no way to measure the quality of life lost due to loss of innovation and research that would have been done otherwise.

And the math the author presents is compelling…

JohnGalt23 on December 25, 2012 at 1:19 PM

And what math would that be? Artificially capping health care expenditures to x percentage of GDP and ration health care to the public based on this capped amount? I thought people who believed in free markets understood that price system and free markets are the most of effective means for distributing scarce goods and services. If a centrally planned health care delivery system without a pricing mechanism and no consumer choice is superior to the free market why stop at health care? Why not expand into other areas such as energy, manufacturing, computer software development? Think of all the administrative costs that can be saved by switching to a command and control economy.

By the way, there are two services that has costs that routinely exceed inflation; health care and college education. It should be noted that government heavily subsidizes both. This is not a coincidence.

And the math the author presents is compelling…

JohnGalt23 on December 25, 2012 at 1:19 PM

astonerii nailed you. Ayn cried in her grave when she read your comment. I said it before…you don’t live up to your nom.

JohnGalt23Wesley Mouch on December 25, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Always have to wonder… was there ever a time you actually had any John Galt in you or did you pick the name just so you could besmirch it with your pathetic posting.