This is so that you have a singular, fair set of laws, and an expectation of enforcement. This exists due to market need

The more the government manipulates the market, the less pure it is. Hence what i was saying about a mix being needed. It sounds like we're not far apart.

Again, it depends on what the government does. If there's no market for something due to lack of ROI and people create an organization that does this task, that's still totally fine within the market

Not everything needs to be privately, personally held and controlled in a capitalist system. Capitalism is simply a "do what you wish" methodology

Again, I come back to health care.

How do you square the circle of not letting people die untreated but leaving it to the market?

Again, I come back to my prior example
>nobody has healthcare for X cost
>X cost is available in theory
>people form an organization to barter as a group, or some other method, to reduce cost to below that of market competitors
>market competitors now have to drop prices, offer better service or lose that market segment

The problem in the States is that the government provides loads of hurdles, including ones you wouldn't even expect were there in the first place until they decide to repeal them. They also legislate in favour of rich lobby groups, further undermining the market they then try to interfere in to "fix"

It would be like if I went to your house, gave your harddrive a whack with a hammer and then pretended it was a manufacturing error

I certainly won't argue that some of the regulation is not helpful, but hospital and clinic care in the US is pretty efficient and getting better. That 25% of everything goes to administrative costs of insurance is the a big hurdle. So are the huge margins of the drug and equipment companies.

there is a problem of who is supplying resources and who are responsible for spending resources. When the person spending is not directly responsibly to the person supplying, then you, without fail, have more being spend than is supplied leading to shortages.

Well and let's look at why those margins are so huge

No argument.

But Grenade, are we willing to let people due of curable conditions just because they don;t have money?

Not only can they get that shit for cheap+with government assistance, the government then tells other people they can't make that medication because big pharma owns *the idea*

And you can buy and sell knowledge as a product, a commodity, rather than a service

when things are finite, you might have to. not because you want to, but because you don't have a choice.

If you need food and have none but have medicine, will you give medicine to the dying person with food? or the dying person without food?

This is also why Scrib was likely talking about the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. The US is corporation-driven, not market-driven

give it to the one without food, you die, the person with food dies.

The laws exist to assist those who already have corporate power, not remove barriers to competition

Corporations even exist as a state entity in the first place

give it to the one with food, only the person without food dies.

start with this base, and now work backwards.

the system we have now, everyone basically dies

you can't rely on there always being resources, which is the problem of the government

as there are less resources being made (economy goes down the tubes) and but the demand is static, you have someone who is not responsible for making the resource, spending the resource.

leading to the person without food getting the medicine for free, and the person with food and the person with medicine die.

now there is less man power in the whole system, so less resources are being made

making the problem worse.

Government regulation raises cost as you bar low quality stuff from being offered, for better or worse

So now someone who could get something done at a place where maybe the doc is not certified but he had a 50/50 chance of coming out alright now has 0 chance of coming out alright because the government removed that option.

so now we come to the need of government assistance, since the government just fucked with the market, things are now worse off

because most people would prefer 50% of living vs 0% chance

So, we need to take resources from people who are good at making resources, and provide them to people not good a producing resources.

which is all fine and well so long as the people producing resources make enough to cover the people not making resources

but that doesn't always happen

some times nature says fuck you and takes a bunch of useful people out, some times people say fuck you and take a whole bunch of useful people out, and sometimes society says fuck you and doesn't make enough new useful people and all the current useful people get old

welcome to life, shit is always changing

Hmm, so you think licensing of health care professionals is the problem?

there is a difference between believing something is a problem and it not being a solution