[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).

He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit. He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations. Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fire department example is pretty good. It does show that where there's profit, that profit will often come first, since people love money. And to some extent that could be a bad thing when it comes to saving lives.

Just think about the police being ruled by a free market. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that it would not work very well. They would begin catch criminals based on which payed the most, the richest people would always get away, and sooner or later there would be no justice left.

I think all societies need some kind of system that secure that some desicions are made on a moral ground, and not by which costumer pays most. That goes for the police, that goes for fire fighters, and IMO it goes for health care too.