Re: That works both ways - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 15/03/2010 06:29:54 AM
As recently noted, Canada and other countries innovate just fine, but far be it from me to let that interfere with good rhetoric. 
Thank you Joel, I did just say "Forget for the moment how well it is or isn't working in other countries", this is an ER situation, not chronic treatment, he's come down with a trauma case of 'Lefty', a shot of adrenaline to the heart is necessary
You also said, "Remember how much of modern medicine relies on technological advancement, and consider where innovation tends to come from, and exactly how much incentive companies are going to have to do R&D when the price and profit for their efforts will probably be set by DC. " A lot of innovation has come from countries with public healthcare (especially in a number of recently Canadian examples. ) If you meant, "consider where innovation tends to come from, but only consider it within a country with no public healthcare" then, yes, it's axiomatic that innovation comes from the private sector, but I don't see what that proves other than the fact America has no public healthcare, which we already knew.
Meanwhile, according to pharmaceutical executives the bulk of their overhead goes to advertising, not R&D, so maybe the problem is less non-existent US public healthcare than the drive for profits above all.
Anyway, my main point is it's a little disingenuous when government programs are hamstrung by a party that then cites the resulting poor performance as proof government programs don't work. It's like putting Kim Jong Il in charge of the IAEA and then pointing to North Korea as "proof" it doesn't work. If a system is designed to fail failure isn't a huge surprise, but it's sometimes more indicative of poor management than an inherently poor system. There are a lot of critics of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but few among those receiving any of them, and even those few usually complain they don't get MORE government services. Fortunately we have things like private retirement investments and private healthcare for those who can afford the greater service they desire, but, once again, no one who CAN'T afford more is forced to accept nothing.
Yes, pro-capitalists sometimes sabotage socialist programs and then scream about failure, and pro-socialists regularly point at enterprises that are way far away from genuine free-market examples via their regulation and scream about corporate greed and it's failures. I don't think either set of cases represent the norm or are responsible for most of the problems that pop up. To your other point, I don't consider customer satisfaction of vote yourself rich schemes much of an argument, and before you say it, no, obviously few beneficiaries get rich from it, not the point.
In my experience, recent and otherwise, pro-socialists typically point to disasters that prompted regulation and recurred only after that regulation was repealed by "free" market acolytes. And, yes, the point of the "vote yourself rich" claim is very much about trying to politically mandate prosperity; no one is trying to get ahead because they get public healthcare: They're just trying to survive.