>>>>>As to your second paragraph. I believe in capitalism (I have already lived in socialism and don't like it at all <g>). Whoever will find cure for cancer, AIDS, or Alzheimer's will know that if they set the price for their medication at $10,000, nobody will be able to afford to buy it. So they will have to lower the price until it is affordable and profitable.
>>>>>Supply and demand will take care of the price.
>>>>
>>>>How, exactly? What if they decide they make enough profit at $5000, so maybe 2% of those excluded at $10000 can now afford it? And, if they are protected by a patent, and charge as outrageously for production under their patent, they can effectively dictate the price for other manufacturers - thus dictating the price worldwide. I wouldn't call that free market.
>>>>
>>>>OTOH, how do we know that the cure wasn't found yet? Any small independent manufacturer, inventor and whatnot, who cures cancer using other methods, is inevitably declared a quack, con artist and whatnot. How do we know some of them weren't real? One young guy from Virginia Beach (or somewhere in the neighborhood) went through a long court battle to be allowed to opt for alternate cure. He won in the end, but it took a few months, and then he went to Mexico to have his therapy and wasn't heard about since, not that I know. Had he died, I'm sure he'd be in the headlines.
>>>>
>>>
>>>We can argue back and forth with all kinds of imaginative scenarios. But I see capitalism as the best (not perfect, of course) approach to setting the prices. You (based on what I read in your messages) are proponent of socialist approach (anybody who says that government is the best way to set the prices is a socialist in my book <g>). But, anyways, I just don't like when the government will control prices for health-care. Because in the end it will mean more corrupt politicians (and we already have too many of those).
>>>
>>>To those that say that price for medications is the main cause of health-care cost being so high (and it is high, I agree, but it is good), I will say that the setting the limits on malpractice suits will greatly reduce the health-care costs too. Which will reduce the premiums doctors and hospitals have to pay for their insurance.
>>
>>Or not. The insurance companies and the health care industry have already determined that consumers will pay what they already are for health care. Why should they reduce costs?
>>
>>The fact that the health care industry, pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry, and the legal industry all co-own each other via stock ownership makes money for all no matter what.
>>
>>Supply and demand is great in a classroom.
>>
>
>So you are advocating for the government bureaucrat to set the prices, right? You see it is one of the other.

I think the government needs to step in and stop monopolistic or oligopolistic (those don't adequately describe the situation) practices. People/corporations should not have complete control of strategic (ie oil) or other absolute necessities (health care). That is not capitalism - it is closer to economic terrorism.