The proof is very easy to come by, ask yourself, have you ever voted for a bureaucrat?

One way to make sure crime doesn’t pay would be to let the government run it.
Ronald Reagan

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
Ronald Reagan

Holding on to do everything for everyone for as long as someone wants that everything done is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You keep going back to this shortage argument. Shortages are predictable results of market distortions.

Scarcity is a fact of life for ALL economic systems. There is always a scarcity of any thing or good. Markets are brilliant in MAKING people face the reality of scarcity, and compelling calibrated decisions about where they put their own SCARCE resources.

When you distort the market…as in shifting the payment for any good or thing to a third-payer…you have a PREDICTABLE shortage, because people will DEMAND more of that for which they are not required to have to pay.

You have never tried to explain how medical treatment is different now…fundamentally…from the period before WWII wage and price controls, which first started the market distortions for medical care. I understand why; you cannot.

Markets are the answer here, as in so many other areas that seem to present Gordian Knots. Some people consider their effect “magical”, and for good reason. They work.

Remove the market distortions for health care, and…almost by magic…people will find that DEMANDING what they cannot afford will cease. Some people will expend their scarce resources in ways you do not approve. That is called FREEDOM.

People who are dead, whose bodies have outlived their souls, folks who need to be let go AND letting them go has nothing to do with losing one’s moral compass nor being from a culture of death.

But that is your naked, unsupported opinion. Yours is not better than anyone’s who disagrees. YOU have decided they are “dead”. Others, with every bit as much validity and support, feel otherwise.

They elect, sometimes, life. You call them selfish. You are allowed, but you cannot expect others to concede that you are right, merely because you say it, no matter how sincerely. I sincerely think you are dead wrong.

By some estimates, 30 percent of health-care spending may be unneeded or ineffective.

Economist Robt. Samulson
http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167

That tracks very nicely with the Swiss model.

Long term chronic diseases and how we care for those folks simply has to be addressed IF we are serious about managing health care cost. A healthy dialog about that issue will not be had if it is framed as can be seen in this very thread.

I go back to this question: Who do you propose to decide when we terminate life?

Yeah, I’m sure that’s accurate. I’m a member of the culture of death and I have lost my moral compass.

Just so you know, that kind of labeling and judgmentalism does nothing to help further the discussion nor contribute anything positive to the attempt to have a discussion with integrity. A discussion that will need to be had if we are serious about controlling the cost of health care.

My point has been adequately demonstrated by the many responses here.

IF we are going to have a serious and effective discussion and solutions in regards to the cost of health care, the attitudes reflected in many of the replies directed towards me, the attitudes folks who are posting them, it is your attitude that contributes to that cost.

The idea that everyone gets everything for as long as someone wants them to get that everything IS part of what drives the high cost of health care.

Labeling those of us who understand that reality and propose any alternative point of view being labeled as belonging to the culture of death or have lost our moral compass is an indication that we will not address health care cost effectively and healthfully.

Holding on to do everything for everyone for as long as someone wants that everything done is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

People who are dead, whose bodies have outlived their souls, folks who need to be let go AND letting them go has nothing to do with losing one’s moral compass nor being from a culture of death. Quite the contrary. It means I value life and my moral compass is quite intact.

You see I’m not so selfish regarding my own emotions that I allow avoiding pain to force another human being to suffer endlessly and needlessly.

How sad it is that other folks insist on preserving themselves from sadness and pain SO much, that they will doom another human being to endless days of nothingness to keep them alive at all cost.

Quite sad and the epitome of selfishness. Moral compass has been lost by which one of us?

Long term chronic diseases and how we care for those folks simply has to be addressed IF we are serious about managing health care cost. A healthy dialog about that issue will not be had if it is framed as can be seen in this very thread.

It isn’t going to be easy but it needs to be done. Like it or not.

I really wonder if Ron Paul lives in reality. While I admire his adherence to the Constitution, I think his foreign policy ideas are idiotic.

And his greatest liability are his supporters. Whew.

Paul, as I said, is not devoid of good, insightful stuff…on occasion.

Generally, he’s a self-described Libertarian. Problem with that is that he ran for Pres. under a false flag, or…as we say in Texas…he lied. He portrayed himself to be a conservative, which was no more true than Mr. McAnus’s claim.

He has a rep for party loyalty…with him being the party.