Healthcare is not a market good - it's a necessity and basic human right as far as I'm concerned. It's in the government's best interest to keep its populace healthy, just like it is to keep the population educated.
Yes, I really think drug companies would put more harmful drugs on the market if that netted them more profit and if they weren't required to go through the rigorous testing procedures they're forced to now. Do you really think it's above a company to put profit over consumer welfare? The fear of monetary loss has not in any way shape or form kept companies from doing shady, dangerous, cost-cutting shit in the past. Lead paint anyone? Deepwater Horizon? Whatever it is Monsanto keeps trying to put in our food?
Our current economic ills? I personally think they started in the 70's with wage suppression and the subsequent explosion of consumer debt via credit. Instead of being paid a decent wage to begin with, people were told to rack up debt. Consumption dropped and rather than stimulate it in a sensible, effective way (ie; put more money in the pockets of poor, lower, and middle-class people, the ones who actually spend their money, by keeping their other costs at a reasonable level), artificial consumption was drummed up as a solution.
Enter Reagan and the magical theory that if you don't need to scrub your feet if you use enough shampoo and we've initiated and perpetuated logic and policies that continually disenfranchise the consumer base while creating profits for the already-rich.
Fast forward to our current crisis, it's the result of those policies destroying the consumer base + deregulated markets engaging in predatory banking, loan, and mortgage practices.
Deregulation of markets won't help. Letting those markets completely and entirely fail wouldn't have/won't help unless your goal is to make things worse so that 'via the truly free market they can get better' (the typical Austrian/Paultard pessimistic approach). What will help is proper regulation of said markets with extensive consumer protection measures in place combined with policies that redistribute wealth in a sustainable and fair manner.
So healthcare is not a market good? Why? Because you and a relatively small group of people say it isn't? That is like saying it looks like a duck, acts like a duck but you are calling it a dog because you want it to be? No matter how much you want it to be a "dog" it will never be one! I guess we should re-write the economics text books because your moral argument offers "another solution". And while we're at it, why don't we offer a house to everyone that does not have one, because we all know that everyone has a right to shelter? Right? We all know how that worked out...
Let us take your moral argument for a moment that healthcare is "a right". In order to assert that, you must assert that you have a right to someone Else's services? Is that moral? Even if we say that the services are paid for through a healthcare tax fund...the funds are taken from other people who may or may not directly benefit from the social service or may not want to in the first place? Is that moral?
We both want to see healthcare be more marketable for people. The point is that the socialized approach can't be sustained over the long term with all of the positive effects of a free-market product (skilled medical staff, cutting edge technology, availability of service, etc.) because a socialized system does not offer an accurate price system- which is what guides the productive efforts of every person in a market. I will not expound on how important price theory is because this thread would be really long, I could only hope that you are considering that in your argument.
Regarding your economic analysis...
Where did the creation of consumer credit come from Jeff? If you answer the Federal Reserve, you are right. Could we both agree that the Fed engages in activities that create unintended consequences that negatively affect our economy?
As for the rest of your analysis, there are WAY too many generalities to begin picking them apart. You do make the fatal flaw of assuming "consumption", drives an economy towards some kind of magical prosperity. That is bogus and counter-productive in your argument. Productive capacity is driven by producers. Always has been, always will be. Which is why your the rest of you analysis fails- Production requires capital and capital is pooled and funneled through people who generally have higher incomes. Yet if we were to redistribute wealth from people who pool capital, we would be stuck in a consumer goods cycle because business would not be able to engage in long term investment projects that increase the productive capacity of the nation.
As for Regan..hmmm...let us just say that he is no where near the "free-market" proponent every clueless right-wing nut says he is. Government debt as a percentage of GDP exploded under Regan and in my eyes, that is deplorable.
Also, why do you consistently use the term "Paultard"? Slightly demeaning. Should I lump you in the "Krugtard" group because I don't agree with your logic?
