When Government Plays Doctor

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

this may all be true, but if a company can get successful while still being discriminatory because they're prejudiced, then they would do it.

 

status: guess what? as soon as a company corners the market, that hampers good ideas because any good ones will either be bought out and watered down or crushed entirely.

 

And how does a company become successful while discriminating, please tell me???? Do you like buying products from someone who treats you like crap? The very idea that a company can be successful (without intervention) while treating anyone horribly, workers or customers, is at best a complete fallacy and worst an outright lie.

 

As far as your status check, the only way possible, what you call "cornering" a market, is through government intervention. A company would not be able to corner any market without a. always improving and having the best product available at the cheapest possible price or b. having an outside entity forcing people to comply. Since competition, money, greed, customer satisfaction and prosperity are what drives companies to improve products and ideas; the only logical way for a company to "corner" the market is through force (aka. government intervention.) Any other way is fallicious or illogical.

[carlfense]

 

this may all be true, but if a company can get successful while still being discriminatory because they're prejudiced, then they would do it.

 

status: guess what? as soon as a company corners the market, that hampers good ideas because any good ones will either be bought out and watered down or crushed entirely.

 

And how does a company become successful while discriminating, please tell me???? Do you like buying products from someone who treats you like crap? The very idea that a company can be successful (without intervention) while treating anyone horribly, workers or customers, is at best a complete fallacy and worst an outright lie.

 

As far as your status check, the only way possible, what you call "cornering" a market, is through government intervention. A company would not be able to corner any market without a. always improving and having the best product available at the cheapest possible price or b. having an outside entity forcing people to comply. Since competition, money, greed, customer satisfaction and prosperity are what drives companies to improve products and ideas; the only logical way for a company to "corner" the market is through force (aka. government intervention.) Any other way is fallicious or illogical.

 

Haha. Pullman Company and US Steel come to mind. Your assertion is the fallacy.

[HuskerJen]

SoCalHusker,

 

Interesting. In your view...

 

If there were no regulations, laws or any type of oversight over business, industry and/or commerce, and they were allowed to self police, they would:

 

I) be responsible stewards of the environment,

II) pay all members of their respective organization a fair "living wage" and

III) not buy out their competition, corner the market and then raise prices at every turn;

 

because, the free market would punish those companies, regardless of industry, if they acted in an irresponsible manner.

 

 

I'm sorry SoCal but that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

 

 

Applying the logic you used here we should get rid of the laws prohibiting murder because obviously it's the laws prohibiting murder that cause people to commit murder.

 

While we're at it, let's do away with laws pertaining to stealing because people only steal because there are laws against it.

 

I think that what you're advocating might work in a perfect world, but then again, in a perfect world communism would work.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

this may all be true, but if a company can get successful while still being discriminatory because they're prejudiced, then they would do it.

 

status: guess what? as soon as a company corners the market, that hampers good ideas because any good ones will either be bought out and watered down or crushed entirely.

 

And how does a company become successful while discriminating, please tell me???? Do you like buying products from someone who treats you like crap? The very idea that a company can be successful (without intervention) while treating anyone horribly, workers or customers, is at best a complete fallacy and worst an outright lie.

 

As far as your status check, the only way possible, what you call "cornering" a market, is through government intervention. A company would not be able to corner any market without a. always improving and having the best product available at the cheapest possible price or b. having an outside entity forcing people to comply. Since competition, money, greed, customer satisfaction and prosperity are what drives companies to improve products and ideas; the only logical way for a company to "corner" the market is through force (aka. government intervention.) Any other way is fallicious or illogical.

 

Haha. Pullman Company and US Steel come to mind. Your assertion is the fallacy.

 

Except the government intervened when the workers boycotted, forcing everyone to return to work and allowing the business to run without any regard for the workers. Let's get the facts straight before you blame that on anything resembling the free market. Read up. Pullman Boycott

[SOCALHUSKER]

SoCalHusker,

 

Interesting. In your view...

 

If there were no regulations, laws or any type of oversight over business, industry and/or commerce, and they were allowed to self police, they would:

 

I) be responsible stewards of the environment,

II) pay all members of their respective organization a fair "living wage" and

III) not buy out their competition, corner the market and then raise prices at every turn;

 

because, the free market would punish those companies, regardless of industry, if they acted in an irresponsible manner.

 

 

I'm sorry SoCal but that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

 

 

Applying the logic you used here we should get rid of the laws prohibiting murder because obviously it's the laws prohibiting murder that cause people to commit murder.

 

While we're at it, let's do away with laws pertaining to stealing because people only steal because there are laws against it.

 

I think that what you're advocating might work in a perfect world, but then again, in a perfect world communism would work.

 

Sorry Jen, but you are making entirely zero sense. Last time I checked murder and theft were a violation of personal property. Read any of the above links and you might have figured that out. And no, communism wouldn't even have worked in a perfect world. For starters it doesn't account for prices or any type of human behavior.

[huskertim]

Wow, Socal, sorry to leave you out here as the sole defender of democracy and free market economics, but your doing a great job.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Wow, Socal, sorry to leave you out here as the sole defender of democracy and free market economics, but your doing a great job.

 

No worries!! I'm not defending democracy though!! Free markets, yes. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no!!

[huskertim]

 

Let me take a crack at this one.

 

1 There aren't laws telling evil companies that the can't dump pollutants into rivers etc. There are laws limiting how much they can dump. IE you may have 3 parts per million dioxin output into local watershead. This is kind of like the FDA saying you may have .003 grams of rat balls per pound of peperoni. Guess how many grams of ratballs end up in your peperoni. Any idea how many grams of rat balls I want in my peperoni? Why do you suppose, instead of criminal penalties (at least in most cases), they impose financial penalties?

 

2 4 monopolies, interesting. You do realize that since 1996 that the average consumer has enjoyed vastly expanded choices for phone, internet, wireless, satellite and telegraph services. Yeah, the big guys get bigger, but the little guys just keep popping up. Hey, by the way hows that Hulu stock doing these days?

For the record, I do support antitrust laws, I just don't trust the lawyers making them.

 

3 You know, I've worked for minimum a couple of times in my life, but I always seemed to find someone willing to pay more. Thank God for my altruistic employers. I do find it odd that the local fast food joints are all offering more than minimum wages, they must all be run by really nice guys. Jen, maybe you could swing by the local home depot parking lot and try to hire some day labor (for the unintitiated, that means illegals) at .25 a day or even minimum for that matter.

 

I'm not an anarcist, I see the need for government regulation, but let's not place too much faith in the puppets of those you wish to regulate. Greed is bad, but a wise man uses the fools vices against him. The "invisable hand" of the free markert is merely a self checking mechanism against such greed. Unfortunately, this measure is defeated by the introduction of your tax dollars to the market.

 

The environment: And if those laws weren't in place companies would dump ALL their pollutants into streams, rivers and those toxic remnants would seep down into the aquifer where we get our drinking, bathing and swimming pool water from...try again.

 

Monopolies: Do we really have more choices? Sure there are many cell phone companies out there, AT&T/Cingular, Alltell, Sprint, Cricket, Verizon, etc. But, if you read their business policies there's not much difference, if any, between them and they all pretty much march to the same tune. The point here is that we live in a society where "choice" is the grandest illusion of all. If you have 10 sources to watch the news, what difference does it make if all the networks are owned by the same company? What happens when a story breaks about company wrong-doing and the news networks, because they're all ran by the same corporation squashes the story and/or orders it not to be reported? Yeah I know, that's ridiculous that would never happen.

 

Slave labor: I'm not talking about here in the USA so that's a moot argument. Do some research on working conditions and wages across the globe and you'll see what I'm talking about. How much do you think Nike pays their sweatshop workers a day? Maybe two or three dollars? And during that day those same workers churn out x number of piece of crap shoes.

 

Here's a practical example: A company's CEO needs to make safety improvements to avoid an explosion and the resulting damage to both the physical plant and the environment. If the CEO makes these safety upgrades, the company, and by extension the workers, plant and all involved are safer and the company posts a profit of 999 million dollars. If the company doesn't make the saftey upgrades, the posted profit is 1 billion. Guess what the CEO will do? That's right, he'll forego the safety for record profits.

 

(And by the way, ^^^^ actually happened. The numbers may be off but the gist of it is right on target.)

 

The point: You cannot ever convince me that if companies were left alone, unregulated, unwatched and uncontrolled, such as in a pure free market form, that they would act ethically and do the right thing. There is just too much evidence that says otherwise. And if you think that companies, if left alone, would act ethically and responsibly, then pass me some of the substance(s) you are ingesting because it obviously blocks out reality.

 

So, In defense of my points: firstly Jen, you have a tendency to berate people for not reading your complete post before responding and yet, you didn't seem to notice the end of mine before you replied.

 

Environment: Yes, there should be responsible regulation, but what we have now is geared more toward revenue collection and pandering to various constituancies. IE; nuclear power, we know how to do it, it's actually pretty safe and it's about as environmentally sustainable as you can get. Hell, if the French can pull it off why can't we? Wouldn't have anything to do with self perpetuateing environmental cults would it?

 

Monopolies: I know I have more choices. 15 years ago we had 1 choice for cable tv in Omaha, and only 1 choice for phone service. Funny how I now get both, plus my HS internet for about the same price today as I did then. But, then again, I'm sure this is just a plot by those evil corporations and not some result of the cable companies entering the phone business via deregulation.

 

"Slave Labor"; So, I thought Lord Obama actually had to become global king before he passes the world wide minimum wage edict, I guess I could be wrong. Oh, and by the way, $1-$2 a day may suck by our standards, but that might well be the difference between starving and feeding your family in many countries. If your solution to this horrible circumstance is to cut them off altogether, I would rather withold my support of this initiative for the time being.

 

So your example (cause evidently I don't look stuff up enough) is perhaps Union Carbide? I would have to ask if making the cost for domestic prodution for these chemicals so prohibitive that the companies sought to do so off shore worked out? I mean I'd ask 25000 Indians, if they weren't dead. What I'd suggest is making regulations resonable and absolute to the point where a company could not sell products in this country unless they met them regardless of the products point of origin, but that would ruffle a few political feathers.

 

Again, If your still reading, I am not an anacist. I see the need for government regulation, but let's not let the fox guard to henhouse.

 

By the way, you cannot embide on said substance as you are being protected by your beloved government.

[huskertim]

Wow, Socal, sorry to leave you out here as the sole defender of democracy and free market economics, but your doing a great job.

 

No worries!! I'm not defending democracy though!! Free markets, yes. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no!!

 

Sorry to bring you down bro, but you just ain't gonna have one without the other. Neccessary evil, meet good idea.

[HuskerJen]

So, In defense of my points: firstly Jen, you have a tendency to berate people for not reading your complete post before responding and yet, you didn't seem to notice the end of mine before you replied.

 

Environment: Yes, there should be responsible regulation, but what we have now is geared more toward revenue collection and pandering to various constituancies. IE; nuclear power, we know how to do it, it's actually pretty safe and it's about as environmentally sustainable as you can get. Hell, if the French can pull it off why can't we? Wouldn't have anything to do with self perpetuateing environmental cults would it?

 

Monopolies: I know I have more choices. 15 years ago we had 1 choice for cable tv in Omaha, and only 1 choice for phone service. Funny how I now get both, plus my HS internet for about the same price today as I did then. But, then again, I'm sure this is just a plot by those evil corporations and not some result of the cable companies entering the phone business via deregulation.

 

"Slave Labor"; So, I thought Lord Obama actually had to become global king before he passes the world wide minimum wage edict, I guess I could be wrong. Oh, and by the way, $1-$2 a day may suck by our standards, but that might well be the difference between starving and feeding your family in many countries. If your solution to this horrible circumstance is to cut them off altogether, I would rather withold my support of this initiative for the time being.

 

So your example (cause evidently I don't look stuff up enough) is perhaps Union Carbide? I would have to ask if making the cost for domestic prodution for these chemicals so prohibitive that the companies sought to do so off shore worked out? I mean I'd ask 25000 Indians, if they weren't dead. What I'd suggest is making regulations resonable and absolute to the point where a company could not sell products in this country unless they met them regardless of the products point of origin, but that would ruffle a few political feathers.

 

Again, If your still reading, I am not an anacist. I see the need for government regulation, but let's not let the fox guard to henhouse.

 

By the way, you cannot embide on said substance as you are being protected by your beloved government.

 

The part in red...I think you have me confused with other posters because I'm not sure where this is coming from.

 

 

The part in orange...I couldn't agree more. SoCal is saying that it's because of government laws/regulations that we have the problems we do. And while governmental over-regulation is certainly a problem, it is far from being the sole cause as SoCal says.

 

The part in green...You know people really can be amazing in their indifference and the way they can justify exploitation of their fellow human beings. It just amazes me that because those terrible working conditions are far away in a foreign country that somehow that makes it okay. It's the whole, it doesn't affect me so who cares mentality. Getting paid 1-2 dollars a day is near slave wages, it's exploitation and if it was happening to you you wouldn't stand for it.

 

As for my solution, it's quite simple...companies should be required to pay people a wage they can live on. Oh but we couldn't possibly ask that! Because if we did, that would mean that some corporation would only post $498 billion in profits as opposed to 500 billion.

 

Look, I've said this before but I think I need to say it again...

 

1. I am pro-business, I am pro-profit but I also believe that there should be a balance between quest for the almighty dollar and being responsible.

 

2. If you seriously think I like, or even voted, for Obama then you truly haven't understood the gist of my posts.

[huskertim]

Yeah, I got the whole you don't like Obama thing from your multitude of satanic and hitler-esk comparisons. It was once again a jab that I hoped would cause you to reexamine you arguements for a greater role in regulation, which I interpeted as contrary to your beliefs as I have read your posts on other threads. By the way, I refuse to point out when I'm being sarcastic or facetious as I hope the reader has the smarts to figure it out on his own.

 

As to Socal, I agree the guy has gone off the reservation a bit with the whole anarchy thing but, as the pendulum of regualtion has swung so far afield itself, I really appreciate the guys almost quixotic pursuit of a more free and fair market as long as he doen't go all Uni-bomber on us(name and address withheld at subscriber request). He is is dead on about the effects of regulation actually favoring these big corporations (all run by Lucifer himself) over smaller competitive endeavors.

 

Lastly, If you think I don't have sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged of the world, then you milady truely haven't understood the gist of my posts.

[carlfense]

So, In defense of my points: firstly Jen, you have a tendency to berate people for not reading your complete post before responding and yet, you didn't seem to notice the end of mine before you replied.

 

Environment: Yes, there should be responsible regulation, but what we have now is geared more toward revenue collection and pandering to various constituancies. IE; nuclear power, we know how to do it, it's actually pretty safe and it's about as environmentally sustainable as you can get. Hell, if the French can pull it off why can't we? Wouldn't have anything to do with self perpetuateing environmental cults would it?

 

Monopolies: I know I have more choices. 15 years ago we had 1 choice for cable tv in Omaha, and only 1 choice for phone service. Funny how I now get both, plus my HS internet for about the same price today as I did then. But, then again, I'm sure this is just a plot by those evil corporations and not some result of the cable companies entering the phone business via deregulation.

 

"Slave Labor"; So, I thought Lord Obama actually had to become global king before he passes the world wide minimum wage edict, I guess I could be wrong. Oh, and by the way, $1-$2 a day may suck by our standards, but that might well be the difference between starving and feeding your family in many countries. If your solution to this horrible circumstance is to cut them off altogether, I would rather withold my support of this initiative for the time being.

 

So your example (cause evidently I don't look stuff up enough) is perhaps Union Carbide? I would have to ask if making the cost for domestic prodution for these chemicals so prohibitive that the companies sought to do so off shore worked out? I mean I'd ask 25000 Indians, if they weren't dead. What I'd suggest is making regulations resonable and absolute to the point where a company could not sell products in this country unless they met them regardless of the products point of origin, but that would ruffle a few political feathers.

 

Again, If your still reading, I am not an anacist. I see the need for government regulation, but let's not let the fox guard to henhouse.

 

By the way, you cannot embide on said substance as you are being protected by your beloved government.

 

The part in red...I think you have me confused with other posters because I'm not sure where this is coming from.

 

 

The part in orange...I couldn't agree more. SoCal is saying that it's because of government laws/regulations that we have the problems we do. And while governmental over-regulation is certainly a problem, it is far from being the sole cause as SoCal says.

 

The part in green...You know people really can be amazing in their indifference and the way they can justify exploitation of their fellow human beings. It just amazes me that because those terrible working conditions are far away in a foreign country that somehow that makes it okay. It's the whole, it doesn't affect me so who cares mentality. Getting paid 1-2 dollars a day is near slave wages, it's exploitation and if it was happening to you you wouldn't stand for it.

 

As for my solution, it's quite simple...companies should be required to pay people a wage they can live on. Oh but we couldn't possibly ask that! Because if we did, that would mean that some corporation would only post $498 billion in profits as opposed to 500 billion.

 

Look, I've said this before but I think I need to say it again...

 

1. I am pro-business, I am pro-profit but I also believe that there should be a balance between quest for the almighty dollar and being responsible.

 

2. If you seriously think I like, or even voted, for Obama then you truly haven't understood the gist of my posts.

 

Well said Jen. Particularly the part I put in bold. (you said that far better than I have) I agree that some of the governmental regulation is harmful and maybe even counterproductive in the pharmaceutical field. That said, removing regulations entirely would likely have disastrous results.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Written a while back, but the article linked below clearly argues much of what we have been discussing on this thread. Merely insert Bush, Obama, or any other government figure's name in place of Clinton and the argument remains relevent today.

 

The Health Plan's Devilish Principles

[carlfense]

A good article asking questions that the Republicans have trouble answering about health care. (Now I hope they do one for the Democrats.)

 

(the linked article contains hyperlinked sources for some of the more controversial assertions.)

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2220296/pagenum/all/#p2

 

Schrödinger's ElephantThe brain-twisting paradoxes facing Republicans on health care reform.

By Christopher BeamPosted Monday, June 15, 2009, at 1:04 PM ET

 

One reason health care is so hard to talk about sanely is that it's full of paradoxes. How does the United States have one of the best health care systems in the world, yet also one of the worst? Why do regions with the shoddiest health care pay the most for it? If we're trying to save money on health care, how come we're gearing up to pay roughly $1 trillion for reform?

 

Similar paradoxes plague both parties. But the questions facing Republicans as they navigate the health care debate are especially difficult. Here are some of the trickiest ones. If you really want to rattle a conservative's mind, ask these:

 

Do you think health care reform is necessary?

 

The message on all sides is that yes, our health care system needs to be fixed. The United States already spends way too much on care—$1 out of every $6—and costs will only keep trending upward. More than 40 million Americans still don't have health insurance. And many of those who need it are denied treatment for pre-existing conditions.

 

Republicans get this. The GOP alternative plan released in May hit all the right rhetorical notes, talking about the "broken" system in which patients feel "trapped" while doctors feel "torn" between business and medicine.

 

But when pushed, some conservatives will admit they don't think it's that big a deal. As Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the House minority leader, put it at a press conference last week: "About 83 percent of the American people think that their current effect coverage is either good or excellent; 83 percent." He also challenged the notion that more than 40 million Americans lack insurance. "That number may be 45 million, but an awful lot of them could get insurance at work if they wanted to. An awful lot of them are healthy people under 30. But we're not satisfied. Ten million people can't get to the system now. We want everybody, including those 10 million people that don't have access, to have access." Translation: It's a problem, but it's not as big a problem as some people say. Still, I'm not saying it's not a problem!

 

That view has policy implications, too. If you think we need to help only 10 million as opposed to 45 million, then an individual mandate—which would oblige even healthy young people to get insurance—doesn't seem necessary. Even with a mandate, a small percentage of people slip through the cracks. (In Massachusetts, for example, 2.5 percent of people still don't have insurance.) Blunt also manages to play down the urgency by citing customer satisfaction. Eighty-three percent—that's pretty good! But it ignores the problem of rising costs necessary to achieve that satisfaction. The 83 percent figure Blunt cited refers to Americans' satisfaction with the quality of their health care; when it comes to cost, satisfaction drops to 52 percent.

 

Aside from who's right, the Republicans are in a fix. On the one hand, 77 percent of Americans say they think health care costs are too high—so the GOP wants to be seen as supporting reforms that reduce costs. But on the other, they don't seem to think health care reform is all that necessary—it certainly wasn't a priority in the last eight years. The result is a set of solutions—incentivizing prevention, choice, and accountability but requiring none of them—that may improve the system but don't treat it as a crisis.

 

Doesn't a public option actually increase competition?

 

Conservatives love markets. Markets require competition. So more competition is better, right? That's essentially the Democratic argument for a public option: It would improve the health care market by providing competition for private companies and thus forcing them to make cutbacks they wouldn't otherwise make. "Competition is good," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Sunday. "You can write the rules for a level playing field."

 

The conservative response is a combination of "No, you can't" and "No, Congress won't." Government-run health care, they say, would have all sorts of unfair advantages. It wouldn't have to advertise, so it would be able to offer lower premiums. Its insurance pool would be nationwide, giving it more leverage to negotiate prices. It wouldn't need to create a massive reserve fund, which private companies maintain in case they go belly up. Plus, the government would never let its heath care plan fail, so people will feel more confident about it. (If these sound like arguments for a government plan, then you see the depths of the conservative logic vortex.) Unfairness, therefore, is inevitable.

 

Another argument against the public option-as-competition is that its logical endpoint—and President Obama's stated best-case scenario—is a single-payer system. The result wouldn't be government forcing private companies to improve their services via fair competition. It would be government picking which private companies succeed and which ones fail. And that is hardly market competition.

 

Doesn't the government already run health care?

 

Next time someone tells you he'll leave the country if it institutes government-run health insurance, suggest he buy his plane ticket today. Almost half of all health care spending in the United States is already government spending—think Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other state health programs. Meanwhile, the private health insurance market is one of the most highly regulated sectors of the economy, both on the state and federal levels. "They're governed by telephone-book-sized books of regulations," says Robert Moffit of the Heritage Institute. States dictate medical underwriting rules—for example, they can prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage—as well as specify which benefits get included in private plans. So in that sense, almost all private health insurance is "government-run."

 

Sure, there's a lot more the government could do—force you to enroll, favor one plan over another, set rates, etc. But a blanket condemnation of government-run health care ignores the fact that America is already halfway there. As Blunt put it, "with the federal government already $1.8 trillion in debt, would you really put that institution that's already out of money in charge of your family's health care?" Too late.

 

Is it possible to achieve universal coverage without mandating it?

 

No matter what your vision for health care, chances are it has the word universal in it. Democrats want "universal health care." Republicans tout "universal access to affordable health care." But the latter isn't really universal. It's basically saying we should reduce costs far enough that anyone who wants it can afford it. No one will argue with that. The problem, though, is that insurance works best when everyone buys it. When they don't—and then get sick—everyone bears the cost. In order to make health care affordable, say Democrats, you have to eliminate the massive costs of treating people who aren't insured. The best way to do that is to force them to buy insurance.

 

Mandating insurance thus does two things: It maximizes the number of people who have coverage, and it reduces the cost of insuring everyone. Sure, no plan is completely universal. You'll always have some people who would rather pay a penalty than enroll. But if the goal is to insure as many people who want it as possible, you're going to get a lot closer by requiring it than incentivizing it.

 

Wasn't America's first universal health care legislation signed by a Republican?

 

Mitt Romney created a migraine for the GOP by passing Massachusetts' health care bill in 2006. He has since managed to blame the bill's downsides—namely, its cost overruns—on a liberal legislature. But it's harder for him to distance himself from the individual mandate. Now anytime Democrats need cover for mandating coverage, they can point out that even conservative Republican Mitt Romney supported it. (However, the Massachusetts plan does not include a public option.) Same with George W. Bush signing prescription drug legislation, the largest Medicare expansion in 40 years.

 

Of course, all these questions come with rejoinders or parallels for Democrats. Republicans may have trouble admitting that health care reform is necessary, but Democrats may have trouble saying they support a single-payer plan run by the government. If a public option really is market competition, then by supporting it, aren't Democrats implicitly agreeing that market competition can improve health care? And if the government already runs so much of our health care system, then why is it so broken?

 

These questions may be easier for Democrats than the other questions are for Republicans, partly because Democrats don't have to defend the status quo. Democrats also have first-mover advantage: Their proposals are driving the debate. Until Republicans come up with some plausible answers, they may find that most of America's health care paradoxes work against them.

[krc1995]

As a person who mostly agress with the Repbulican business theory, I don't want socialize healthcare. But there is going to have to be some governement intervention with price controls and limiting legal judgements. Needs to be done immediately. People also need to be rewarded for taking contol of their own lives and health. Move more and eat less and don't smoke if you don't want cancer. Cigarettes are heavily taxed so that may provide for a smokers increased healthcare cost. While providing tax incentives for individuals that do just that maybe anti-republican, something has to be done to motivate each one of us to responsible for our own health. How many of us out there have adult onset diabetes? Mostly completely preventable. Don't complain about heathcare if your not doing you part