Can someone point me to a Free Market Healthcare System that works?

The map gives an excellent geographical reason for why I have nothing to worry about when it comes to ocean levels rising due to global warming.

Bring it on!!!!!!

oh, and people don't get a vote. States get electoral votes.

 

Fair enough.

Can you cite a nation that has a strictly capitalist healthcare system that I asked for in the OP?

 

The question was, "point to a Free Market Healthcare System somewhere on the planet that is better than Universal Healthcare at containing costs, and providing superior care."

India was ranked 112 out of 190 nations by the World Health Organization. I didn't look up the others, but I don't expect them to be winners......

 

And, those are countries where you can go and buy a kidney - from a living poor person. That is the ultimate in free market healthcare.

 

I think that would be the communist haven of China. Not sure about India.

But we were asked to provide better free market alternatives. Of course the free market is going to rank lower in overall health care because poor people can go take a long walk off a short pier in a free market economy.

 

I thought global warming was a hoax - according to your so-called president...He wouldn't be telling a lie, would he? Nah....

 

You must be getting tired - your last sentence is actually true!

 

I've never made any bones about poor people needing to step up to the plate and grab their boot straps.

You want to be poor, then you want a socialist country. If you want to work for your bowl of beans, then you want a free market.

 

Yeah NY is full of foreigners.

That's why we have to close our country up if we want America to stay America.

 

If you have a point make it...

 

And the extremist alt right doesn't understand why they come across as bigots?

 

Looking back at the crowds at Trump's rallies, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of his supporters come across as rather obtuse.

Certainly not meant as an insult, simply an empirical observation.

 

The extremist alt right is NOT a "majority" no matter how obnoxiously loud it might be.

 

The 26.7% of eligible voters who facilitated Trump's election only qualifies as a "majority" in the eyes of the Delusional RW Fever Swamp.

And, given that Trump has LOST support since the election, it is probably safe to say that Trump is lucky if he enjoys the support of even 1/4 of the country (at this point)

 

Or as PT Barnum put it you can fool some of the people all of the time!

 

This right here is truly the darkest side of free market capitalism, one in which the exploitation of the poor is rampant and truly inhumane. Yet, it contrasts with the reality of our current state of affairs, where the demand for transplant organs exceeds the available supply through the normal channels.

Some are daring to say that we should just allow this dark market into the light, at least we could prevent some of the inhuman exploitation and deception that currently takes place, but yet what does it mean if we start treating the poor as a repository of spare parts for the rich?

These are real dilemmas we will have to take a stand on in the very near future, but on what moral authority do we stand on when we cannot even guarantee basic essential health care for all of our citizens?

 

For many years I am been asking the question about the moral justification for extorting a profit out of a sick child. Not a single advocate for "free market healthcare" has ever even attempted to answer that question. And the reason can only be because there is nothing that justifies that kind of immoral exploitation of children.

Healthcare should not be profit driven because not everyone can afford it and no one should find themselves in bankruptcy court just because they, or a loved one, becomes sick and needs treatment.

One of the primary goals of the Constitution is the General Welfare of We the People and that covers the concept of Universal Healthcare.

 

They do all have universal healthcare, but their health care systems are very different. Take Singapore(mentioned) as an example. I'd be for a UHC along Singapore's lines. I want double-tier, not single-tier(IE: offering both private/public insurance) and that way, you'd have less of a burden on the public, no more of a need for mandates and still have coverage.

 

Wow, we are like totally on the same page here.

This is a morality issue, and one in which I find it very paradoxical that the party of morality cannot see the light of truth. It only underscores the hypocrisy of their "moral" arguments and their true god as the worship of money.

 

I recently rented and watched a DVD called “REPO MEN”. I watched it not for entertainment, but because it exemplified a serious trend of recent times in which good health is largely dependent on economic status. This movie tells of a not-too-distant future in which a company has developed a line of artificial organs which have revolutionized transplant techniques and made them commonplace. The only problem is that the transplants are very expensive, and only the very rich or those with good credit are eligible to receive them. The organs are equipped with tracking chips, and, yes, you guessed it, those paying on the installment plan who fall behind on payments are tracked down and the organs repossessed. Forest Whitaker and Jude Law play two of the “Repo Men” who track down and mercilessly cut open the unlucky victims to harvest the organs, leaving them to die an agonizing death. Going along with the popular belief that government should not interfere with the business sector, the authorities do nothing to interfere with this brutal practice, and in fact, they even appear to sanction it, and the viewer has no choice but to believe that in this imagined society financial responsibility is more important than life itself.

Many people will laugh at the absurdity of this scenario, but not those who have witnessed similar ones. It is unconscionable that before Obamacare, many of our citizens died every year because they could not afford medical attention for potentially treatable conditions which later became terminal. The "cost of LIVING" was just TOO HIGH.

ACA repeal will mean higher insurance rates for substandard care, but will facilitate tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.

 

It is of course moral to assure the well-being of all of our citizens, regardless of race, class and ethnicity. But when that righteous, moral path forces us to take people's right to choose away, then it no longer becomes morally righteous but instead dubious and down a path that humanity is all too familiar with.

What we should do, is assure an easy and accessible system, not "force" it upon unwilling consumers. The money they must "put" into the system, could have went to college savings, food, etc. That's the biggest problem with insurance, it provides no tangible benefit, it only 'insures' in case of a catastrophic event.

In a world of the top 1% having a majority of wealth, how is it "moral" to take what's left to support the health system?

 

Yep...saw the same movie.

You're dead-on right!!!

 

This makes no sense at all!

 

Actually it makes plenty of sense, but rather than repeat myself, I'll just ask you to read it again. Slowly.

 

Begin by explaining this line.

And explain this.