[John Valentine]

Complete crap from another moron with an economics degree.

[John Valentine]

Ultimately, the case for some government intervention and regulation in health care is compelling on the grounds of efficiency (because costs are out of control) and moral justice (because our societies rightly take a more egalitarian view of health than of material possessions). The issue is precisely how much redistribution of income and government intervention is warranted.

For a little more complete reply:

There is NO compelling case for government intervention in health care for ANY reason, least of all for "efficiency". A very persuasive case can be made that previous excursions by government into health care is the predominant reason for high health care costs in the first case.

Nor can there be a case made out for government intervention in the interest of "moral justice" whatever that might be. Government intervention will always and inevitably result in lowered standards, reduced access, higher costs, and more sickness, disability and death, across all income levels and social strata. How is this moral? Or just? It's just nuts.

Finally an "egalitarian view of health"? What the Sam Hill is that supposed to mean? That we all get sick equally? That we all suffer the same level of pain in our joints?

Illness and health is in fact the most UN-egalitarian of things. Illness mocks egalitarianism in that it is random and implacable. It may strike both rich and poor, but those it strikes cannot take comfort in that poor fact.

The fact is that Marxism is dead except on college campuses and in the fevered brains of some so-called economists, most of whom can't hold a true economic thought in their heads long enough to write it down.

[MJY1288]

The clueless Harvard nincompoops are at it again.

Liberals believe the best way to prevent the spread of Marxism is more Government intervention.....

If the Liberals had all the money in the world, they still couldn't buy a clue

[JimSEA]

: What, exactly, are people's basic health needs in an era where medical technology relentlessly advances the frontiers of the possible?

Wrong question Professor. The real need is to advance economic and political freedom in the worlds so called underdeveloped countries. If there is one thing the economic development in the Asian Tigers and some South American countries, it is that development is the norm for reasonably free countries. Our American future depends on the development of wealth is so-called poor countries. If you look at the Third World and compare it to the developing former third world, you will find that poor countries are poor due to fanatical religions (Islamists), idealogical tyranny (Communism/Marxism), corruption/croney capitalism, tyranny of the gangster, etc. Little of this can be blamed on USA, particularly since the neo-cons have brought morality back into foreign relation.

There, I have used my Pontification Quota for today.

[Savage Beast]

"US healthcare costs have already reached 15 percent of annual national income"

Half the costs go to support the medical malpractice litigation scam.

[nj26]

Four word "prescription for Marxism"... Hillary Rodham Clinton '08