Wow, you're a real dick.

Show some alternatives that works at driving innovation on a national scale. Show me and Ill stop.

Oh? k.

Nope.

Both of your examples are examples of state sanctioned monopolies. Proving my point.

Fuck you, and fuck what you thinks is a fair share.

How much is fair? 20%? 30%? 50%? 60%? Whats fair? At what point will you stop trying to take my shit?

I'm fine with some socialism. Its not inherently evil. Its a choice.

I choose to live in a world with rapid technological progress. That requires profit. That means some will not have the same access as others. I will not have access to the latest and greatest, nor will I be able to buy organs over seas, but I am okay with that, because today's miracles will be the things my kids take for granted.

Without profit, companies wont do the research necessary to create the drugs. Without profits companies won't create the manufacturing systems necessary to make drugs widely available. Without capitalism doctors won't make heart transplants a routine occurrence.

Providing care for sick people with commodity solutions at the tax payer's expense may be reasonable, however without profit then our children will be no better off then us.

Capitalist healthcare leads to the commoditization of rare things, turning them into widely available affordable resources enjoyed by all.

Without capitalism aspirin would only be available to kings.

"if you have cancer, you have absolutely no choice but to get some diagnostics and try to get some treatment before you die."

Okay, but what if the proven treatment is a million dollars or more, and there are 100 available doses versus several thousand in need. Yeah, its essential, but it may be literally impossible to distribute fairly. Should the government be the one who decides who get it at a fixed low price? Or should we create a profit motive such that more of it is produce and in the future it will be widely available?

The problem with fixing prices and killing profit motive is that it prevents the normal and good progression of forces that makes an expensive rare thing cheap and widely available. You condemn future generations to the same aggregate limitations. Greed is good when it motivates creation.

How does this bullshit get modded up? Seriously?

Does anyone know what actually anarcho-libertian economics would look like? Cause its not the heavily regulated and subsidized healthcare system we had in the U.S. prior to the ACA.

Moryath is as idiotic as the Tea Party trolls who call Obama a communist.

Health insurance companies couldn't drop people when the customer gets sick prior to the ACA. The change is that they now can't deny coverage for previously existing conditions.

Its good for some little guys, however its bad for the majority of little guys. Some people will get coverage who otherwise would not have. The rest of us will have higher premiums.

They don't. Free Markets address the problem of people being free to do what they choose with their person and property. Thats it.

The problem isn't that markets are too free, they are that they aren't free enough. If we didn't have patent law, then how often would a widely necessary drug be manufactured by only one company? How would artificially high prices be maintained?

No, its totally legit.

Why should a company be forced to cover someone they don't want to? Are they not entitled to choose when and if to enter in to a contract? Are they not entitled to do with their property as the choose? If the people think that there is an ethical imperative to cover someone, then they should do so themselves. Telling others what to do with their property is unethical.

I don't like the people behind this however:
(1) They broke a very minor regulation in an exceptionally complex set of campaign finance laws. Its actually criminal, just against regs. There was no felony.
(2) They are actually trying to hit one of the orgs involved for $15m in addition to the $1m.
(3) Its probably not even unethical. Even when the people involved are assholes, I have a real problem with criminalizing, regulating or punishing people for political speech

I definitely have a problem with the existence of an intentional complex and opaque regulatory code being created to deter political organizations and political speech. More often then not, it won't be used against Koch, but against little guys.

Actually I don't like the direction they are swaying the elections. Im against almost most of Koch's policy objectives.

Thats irrelevant. People shouldn't be targeted by the government for political speech.

Nationalizing 15% of the economy is not right in the fucking center. If you think it is, where the hell does that mean you are?