[Eauz]

From my marxists perspective, I understand the reasoning behind these documentaries about countries like Zimbabwe where they don't have access to things like Aids medicine and such but I want to know how the following is justified in liberal philosophy.

Why is it so important that we report sad stories about how certain women cannot find access to aids medicine or other proper medical attention yet even in the West, there are people who go without medical attention or are incapable, due to the fact that it just costs too much? Why do we feel it is necessary to cry about these poor folks in Africa and how the government isn't help its people yet there are people out there in society who have major mental and physical problems that are still not being treated? Is is based around this idea that at least most people are being taken care of here while apparently very few are abroad? Why can't you provide this sympathy towards your own society that we give to those abroad?

Keep in mind, I am not a supporter of the Zimbabwe government.

[Dr House]

Personally I think the solution here's easy. It's reforming the incredibly retarded healthcare system we have. Either socialize it or let the market take over, you can't have it both ways. If we socialize the system costs go down as risk gets spread among all of society. Under a free market system competition would depress prices, which would have similar effects, with the big difference being under a free market we would sacrifice some quality in exchange for an opt-out option. Either option would work fine, but the system we got now, which has married HMO's to the government "for the good of the people" only serves to fill the pockets of corporate interests without them actually having to work at wooing customers, which guarantees bad service and high prices.

As for the Zimbabwe thing, I think that the problem is umbearably big, but the ultimate solution is to restore peace and economic stability to the region, starting by getting shot of Robert Mugabe. Before he came along Zimbabwe was richer than South Africa, by African standards a success story. Now it is back to the African standard of being a third-world hellhole. It's depressing, really.

[Eauz]

But why do we seems to want to provide all forms of aid to places like Zimbabwe through the use of taxes to provide free health care abroad but not at home? If we can send food aid and support health care solutions abroad why can't we do the same at home? Cut the profits of drug companies and provide it to the people at home who need it as well.

[Dr House]

Because a large political faction at home refuses to believe (either because they are genuinely stupid or they have something to gain from staying the course) that the healthcare issue at home is an issue. Those of us who know the truth are in disagreement over what the problem is. Libertarians and conservatives think it's skyrocketing prices, liberals think it's the people who don't have insurance. I personally think it's both, and both the free-market and the single-payer solution can fix both problems. The trick is getting past the bullshit in DC and implementing one of them.

[keso]

nder a free market system competition would depress prices

Perhaps so, but it's still FOR PROFIT...

What would happen to the price if PROFIT (corporate) were taken out? I'm not talking Doctors' salaries, either, I am talking CORPORATE PROFIT.

[ThereBeDragons]

It is likely that efficiency would go down.

[Zyx]

@ OP;

This probably relates with impression.

You are likely citing the liberals that are at odds with nationalist. A similar case can be made about neocons who seek to export "Democracy" from an authoritarian state but interestingly, their underlying influence is corporate expansion ala soft imperialism and so perhaps too, these liberals cited, have an underlying influence and as for me personally, I find it as a responsibility of the west to revive Africa. In essence, a clean up what you broke.

What is the Marxist reason that you mentioned?

[Dr House]

Perhaps so, but it's still FOR PROFIT...

What would happen to the price if PROFIT (corporate) were taken out? I'm not talking Doctors' salaries, either, I am talking CORPORATE PROFIT.

Prices would go down even more. However, there is still the risk that socialized medicine has inflationary pressure, whereas free-market medicine probably won't. That's why I give both solutions equal weight. However, the absolute worst of all options is the middle ground, and the middle ground we have been pursuing all this time.

And the other thing is underwriting would be downright oppressive under a single-payer system, because everyone has to pay into it anyway. You can't go to another HMO that offers you a lower premium if you're deemed a high risk because it's a single-payer system. So if we wanna preserve underwriting and punish people for irresponsible behaviour we can't have socialized medicine.

In essence, a clean up what you broke.

Agree, but America didn't break Africa. Great Britain, France and the Dutch Empire did.