Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That some people may still not be able to afford enough food is a completely separate issue.
Absolute nonsense. The idea of the government getting involved in healthcare and, for that matter, agribusiness (which it's amusing that you'd use food as an example here) is to ensure that the product or service is available to as many people as possible.
And by "available to", you don't mean what the term literally means (as in: "is there food available to purchase in the store", but "affordable", and even if affordable, then "provided". The term "available" is horribly misused (in both of those industries). I'll also point out that rates of food insecurity don't seem to change at all based on whether someone receives government assistance though.
But that's really beside the point. I was speaking of the private market that buys food in bulk and packages and sells it in stores. And that industry does a pretty bang up job at making sure we don't have things like shortages and that food is priced as affordably as possible . Which is the primary purpose in this case. There's every likelihood that if the government was in charge of bringing food from the farm to your pantry, the result would be far less selection and far greater total cost.
That's a separate issue from things like farm subsidies to manipulate the supply of certain foods (often to prevent prices dropping so low that farmers can't afford to farm that food anymore). If anything, our private food market is almost too efficient.
Quote:
The reason is because of a lock on the market that allowed them to extort money. You realize that pharmaceuticals are a "for-profit" industry right?
Yes. And if they had to sell those pills directly to the customer, no one would pay $700/pill, and they'd make zero profit. Thus, they'd never even attempt it, just as no one tries to charge $100 for a loaf of bread. Same free market forces apply. It's only when the government steps in with some sort of mandate, forcing customers (in this case, the insurance company) to pay for something, that the for-profit guy might just decide to crank up the price.
This is just an extreme example. But tons of other things will also go up in price as a result of this. Just not as much, or as quickly, or as obviously. Which is why those of us who actually understand how markets work have been saying that increased costs will be the result of the individual mandate in the ACA all along. You have to be a complete idiot not to see this obvious outcome.
Quote:
The kind that, by your definition, gain money by producing the best product for the lowest price?
Except when the government gets involved and makes it possible to make the most profit in some other manner. Just as in this case. See how this is actually a proof of my point? Never mind. You don't. You're wearing liberal blinders which prevent you from seeing this.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2016 4:45pm by gbaji