That's right, the capitalist-libertarian answer is always "Fuck you, pay me", or in this case, "fuck you, die".
We have insurance. Its a great way to leverage the group so that all get a low rate. That given, "socialized" medicine is a group policy population wide: which should give the lowest rates split equally between all. Certainly makes the most sense.
“Dear [socialists], our objective, like yours, is the welfare of the poor, more general wealth, and a higher standard of living for everybody—so please let us capitalists function, because the capitalist system will achieve all these objectives for you. It is in fact the only system that can achieve them.”
This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history, and yet it has not and will not win converts to the capitalist system. Because the above argument is self-contradictory. It is not the purpose of the capitalist system to cater to the welfare of the poor; it is not the purpose of a capitalist enterpriser to spread social benefits; an industrialist does not operate a factory for the purpose of providing jobs for his workers. A capitalist system could not function on such a premise.
> This last statement is true and has been proved and demonstrated in history
On the contrary, that last statement is false, which has been demonstrated in history, and is largely why the system for which the term "capitalism" was coined is no longer the dominant system of the developed world, having been replaced by mixed economies -- which transition Rand was part of the rear guard arguing against, and to reverse -- which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did.
"... which retain in outline the property structure of capitalism, but import many aspects of socialism to deal better with exactly those problems than capitalism ever did."
That's a contradiction. You can't have both the property structure of capitalism, and state socialism. You have to violate the former to achieve the latter. I'd argue that current systems claim to keep the structure of the former, but violate it at will.
In terms of dealing better with the provision of healthcare than capitalism ... have you seen the state of the American healthcare system recently?
Yes, US healthcare sucks, but is still-- despite being less universal and less efficient than that of any other modern advanced economy (all of which are also mixed economies) -- better than anything that existed anywhere when capitalism was the dominant model, and not just due to (non-social) technical advances.
Of course, the US has adopted, in many areas and healthcare particularly, less elements of socialism than other advanced mixed economies. So maybe there's a reason US healthcare sucks so hard, and its not insufficient devotion to capitalism.
"So maybe there's a reason US healthcare sucks so hard, and its not insufficient devotion to capitalism."
The list of problems that the previous poster provided were almost all (especially cronyism and cartels) characteristics of systems other than capitalism.
Is it possible we're using different definitions of capitalism, here? I think you might mean crony-capitalism, a.k.a. fascism.
I mean the real economic system that was dominant in the developed world from the late 19th to early 20th Century, which certain of its socialist critics created the word "capitalism" to refer to, since criticising it without a name was problematic, and it was an economic system by which property arrangements, policy, etc., were organized around the interests of the capitalist class.
Cronyism and cartels were certainly not infrequent features of that system.
I'm tempted not to reply to such an obvious straw man argument, but: take a look at the way mutual societies worked prior to socialised medicine. That's the sort of approach people opposed to socialized medicine would prefer. It provides cheap health care and looks after those incapable of doing so themselves, all without coercion.
I know a good deal about the Middle Ages, being part of the SCA. And indeed, it did work pretty well.
The problem is now is that it's not just 1 or 2 people involved with health of the area. It's the doctor, the 2 nurses, the 2 receptionists, the x-ray techs, the lab techs, the pharmacist, the pharmacist techs; all for a call to the doctor.
In hospitals, it's so crazy how billing works, that most hospitals do not actually know how much X costs. instead, they just bill exorbitantly to anyone without insurance, and insurance gives them the agreed upon price.
Drug companies are also really messed up: the US ends up subsidizing the rest of the world's drugs, all the while biasing on maintenance based drugs over cures.
The FDA also has its fair share to blame. They control which universities are accredited, and directly control the flow of doctors purely on the say-so from the AMA, a doctor union.
Considering the complicated nature, insurance covering the nation, aka socialized care, makes the most sense. Tearing down systems like I said above really isn't sustainable.
It's not insurance if you're compelled to buy into it. I believe those are more commonly known as 'protection rackets' ;)
But yeah. Lots of problems: opaque billing, medical cartels (AMA), scale, crony capitalism on the part of drug companies and politicians, ... it's quite a list.
The thing is, many of those problems are a consequence of the existing system of socialised medicine, and would be fixed by the de-nationalisation of the industry.
I happen to strongly agree with you that part of the problem is a shortage of medical staff caused, in part, by a cartel (the AMA). Note their position on the matter of genuinely capitalistic medicine. It's not a coincidence.
We have insurance. Its a great way to leverage the group so that all get a low rate. That given, "socialized" medicine is a group policy population wide: which should give the lowest rates split equally between all. Certainly makes the most sense.