MTgrayling wrote:Free markets are good for most things, health care is obviously not one of them.
It's not obvious to me, but noone has ever accused me of bein really bright. Why don't you explain this with more than a sentence, and make it clear to me how you would drive innovation in health care without a profit motive?
Rather than try to explain it, I'll let a Nobel Laureate economist give it a whack: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0 ... ealthcare/
The fact of the matter is, government funding through places like the NIH drives the vast majority of pure research in the health care field as it is. Read this piece - http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medica ... n-mcardle/
if you'd like a more in depth explanation.
eponymous wrote:What a gov't run system will bring down is the quality of care. You cannot have more for less.
The many, many other systems around the world that are government run would seem to disprove this. Granted, "government run" could mean a lot of things, some of which might not be desirable, but increased government involvement, in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that quality of care will decline. That's not to say that it's the only way to do it, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland have all figured out other ways - all of which seem to work better than ours in many respects.
If you'd like to read a well written, well researched, paper on how the quality of U.S. health care compares internationally, you can find one here - http://www.rwjf.org/qualityequality/pro ... p?id=47508
it's a bit on the long side, but well worth reading.