>>IMO it is shameful that we still don't have any form of universal health care. We are again out of step with other developed countries. What we spend on health care is also out of step, 14-15% of GNP. That is way higher than what other countries spend. Does our current system make us healthier? Maybe at the extreme end of the statistical tail, bleeding edge technologies which cost a fortune. Overall we are no better off, and in many cases are worse off, than the others despite the level of spending. As you suggest, we have an unfortunate Darwinian impulse that underserves the many for the benefit of the few. Namely, big corporations and the individually wealthy.
>>
>>I am no socialist but think we have swung too far in the opposite direction. We have allowed greed and dollars to take control of the system -- in a way that paradoxically winds up costing more dollars overall without improving health.
>
>I find it quite interesting that you feel you need to distance yourself from socialism here whenever you want to say that something needs to be done for the benefit of people, even if it means less profit for someone and more cost saving for the nation at large. To me, it indicates that the battle for health industry dollars is fought with ideological weapons - and the currently winning side is trigger happy to brand anyone pointing out the ridiculous waste the current (so-called) system as a pinko commie socialist.
>
>Getting back to my rant from the other rant - if this is a free market, what's stopping the states and their departments of health from creating their own insurances and having them compete on that market? If private is sooooo good, it'll win in the end, won't it?

Each day, when state gets involved in business (in plainer words squeezes business out and takes its place), brings society closer to the final station (yes, in some quarters it's called pinko-commie etc.)