[ExI] Yet another health care debate

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis writes

> Isn't the simple answer that it [the lack of publicly financed health
> care] must stick out as an obvious deficit to those on the outside?
> It's not as if all these posters are running down every aspect of
> U.S. society.

Hmm, well, okay, but it just seemed to me that there was an "excess"
interest in this one topic. E.g., about as many posts appear from them
furigners on this topic as on American foreign policy, *which* one
can easily see would be of extremely high interest worldwide. 

> (And BTW, publicly funded medicine is not "without charge":
> someone has to pay for it. The two hoped for benefits are that
> it provides better access for all, and that it does this more
> cheaply than the alternative.

And many have been the arguments back and forth, and many
the claims and counter-claims.

Can you perhaps give me a hint of your thought on the following
questions. Why not have the government pay for all food? Isn't
food just as important (or perhaps vastly more important) than
medical care?  How about transportation, or perhaps electrical
power? I anticipate that you will find at least some of these
problematical, and so I wonder what makes health care different
in your eyes.

> There is a calculation to be made if it isn't actually cheaper -
> how much improved access does it take to justify decreased
> efficiency? - but otherwise it's as they say a no-brainer.)

Perhaps to you it's a question of price?  That is, were food to
be as unpredictable and expensive as medical care, then I'd
imagine you'd want to socialize that too? One objection that
we free-market types have is that it's very likely that if you
*did* socialize food to the degree that (already here in the U.S.
medicine through HMOs and other government regulations
is already socialized) health care is, then it might very well
be just as damned expensive!

In the U.S. we have before us constantly the example of the postal
service. The postal service by law enjoys a monopoly, for the 
simple reason that it is inefficient and would be put out of business
by a free-market. Likewise, those aspects of medical care that
are *not* regulated, such as cosmetic surgery, constantly show
vast improvement over time. (I'm sure I hardly need explain to you
the tremendous efficiency of free-markets.)

Lee