Jet, how is health care being for profit a conflict of interest?

If that is the case, why should farming be for profit - people also need to eat. Why should textile manufacturing be for profit, people need clothes. Why should construction be for profit, people need shelter.

I fail to see how stealing from me, or anyone, simply because other people "need" something can be just, or productive in the long term.

These things do not just appear, though in a 10 trillion dollar economy , they may take on the "illusion" of just "happening". But real people have to expend their life's time, effort, and often considerable risk to achieve the production of all these things, health care included.

Why should they not attempt to use their skills and efforts to create a better life for themselves, their families, and their own goals. Who is anyone to say that our lives should be forcibly spent for the betterment of "others".

What is that, if not a form of slavery? The only real difference between this type of Socialism and real slavery, is that the producers of society are given the option to simply not produce. " Who is John Galt? "

Also, British health care sucks ass by all accounts. If the govt says a procedure, even a life saving one is not "covered" you are left with 3 options.

1. ) die

2. ) get rich quickly, and goto the USA for real treatment

3. ) goto India, or other lightly regulated nation for cheap health care. Which is causing all sorts of medical issues, including the spread of a new strain of superbugs that no antibiotic will work against.

Britain is largely Socialist, and has been economically, culturally, and socially stagnant because of it. Germany is finally starting to get a clue, soon the leftist state of Europe will be waking up to the fact that "progressive" ideals are largely a failure... see Greece, and Ireland. California itself is a good case in point against govt zeal. If the rest of the country was run like California, I guarantee we would not be having a discussion, because we would all only have electricity a couple hours a day... unless we imported it from Mexico, anyhow.


Anyhow, there is not one historical example to be found, where increasing regulation, wealth re-distribution and govt economic management and distribution has worked. Not one.

In every case you can find from Rome to the Ottomans to modern European nations, these types of steps and this whole school of thought - be it enacted under the name of Socialism or similar policies enacted under monarchies - increasing govt stranglehold on economic activity and increased wealth distribution have to nothing but more misery, corruption, and societal failure.

There is "one" exception that proves the rule - and that is when a govt is in possesion of large quantities of natural resource that are desired far and wide. Like oil.

But MArgaret Thatcher was 100% correct that " The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money to spend". By extension you can count a natural resource, in a fashion, as "other peoples money". Or more aptly put " wealth that exists but you did not create".

In a way, such countries and civilizations are the anti-socialist poster children of the world. Because we all know what happens to each and every one of them when the Oil/Gold/Diamonds/etc run out.

Other peoples money, and/or natural resources can pay for a lot of bread and circus, but they cannot do it indefinitely. Good intentions, do not necessarily create good policy.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)