Bill Dozier 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱

Mark, you asked me what about the people who cannot get the charity they need. That question is your whole morality laid bare. One man's need is a claim on the lives of other men, and when the claim is not met voluntarily the state may come with guns and collect it. Everything else you have written is detail. And you should notice who the claim falls on. The same people now building a case for a wealth tax are already building it against you. You have said you have enough. They will never have enough, because need as a standard has no ceiling. A man who grants the premise and then argues about the rate is handing over the weapon and negotiating the aim. Rand had a name for that. The sanction of the victim. Now your history, which cuts against you at every point. Yes, in 1953 the most advanced thing in a hospital was a heart lung machine. It was brand new that year, it was wildly expensive, and the first patients who got it were the ones who could pay or the ones a surgeon chose to carry. Twenty years later bypass surgery was routine. That is how every expensive technology has ever reached the ordinary man. The rich buy the first units, that revenue funds the scaling, and the price collapses. Penicillin cost around twenty dollars a dose in 1943 and fifty five cents by 1946. The first CT scanner in 1972 cost a fortune and took hours. Nobody planned any of that. Nobody could have. The same thing happens today wherever the government is not the buyer. An MRI billed through insurance runs two to three thousand dollars. The same scan at a cash imaging center is four to six hundred, on the same machine. Lasik and cosmetic surgery got cheaper every year while everything under Medicare pricing got more expensive. Cancer drugs are expensive for one reason above all others, the $879 million to $2.6 billion it costs to get a molecule through the FDA, and the moment a drug goes generic the price falls to the cost of manufacture, which is how imatinib ended up at $14.40 on your own website. Your 80 million is not an argument against charity. It is the measure of what sixty years of your approach produced. A quarter of the country on means tested government care, and the price seven times higher in real terms than when it started. And the emergency room you keep citing is a 1986 law compelling hospitals to treat and pass the bill to everyone else. That is your system's answer to the poor, not mine. Anyone who believes he can sit down and plan the distribution of medical care and technology across 340 million people is the one living in a fantasy. We have over a century of the attempt and not a single success. Britain's waiting list is above seven million. Canada buried 23,746 people off its waiting lists last year. Medicare missed its own cost projection by a factor of seven. No shortfall in private charity in a free country has ever come close to what socialized medicine does to men as a matter of routine. That is not my argument for capitalism, it is only the record against socialism. The argument for capitalism is that a man's life and his earnings are his own. You say I live in a fictional past. The people who died on Canadian waiting lists last year did not.