George W. Bush truly is a jackass

[Kierland]

No, the folks who need to have their "moral compasses" checked and a serious dose of reality are the sobbing, whiney little fucks like yourself that try to justify the theft of patents....

What? Mellow out dude. I never said anything about stealing patents. I just remarked on your comment that the drug companies are under no moral duty to help people out.

Please try and stay on topic.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

No, the folks who need to have their "moral compasses" checked and a serious dose of reality are the sobbing, whiney little fucks like yourself that try to justify the theft of patents....

What? Mellow out dude. I never said anything about stealing patents. I just remarked on your comment that the drug companies are under no moral duty to help people out.

Please try and stay on topic.

I was on topic. Sorry if you have a hard time with complex discussion. I was explaining that not only do pharmaceutical companies not have some sort of moral imperative to [lisp]help humanity[/lisp], they have every freaking right to do what every business should do - get a nice return on their investment of time, talent, and funding.

It's limp-wristed moralizing to argue that they "owe" humanity their wares at a lower price and it is morally reprehensible for governments to extort lower prices by threatening to steal patents.

Claiming that I have something wrong with my [lisp]moral compass[/lisp] just because you think that drug companies "owe" you cheap medicines is frigging idiotic. They don't "owe" you cheap medicine any more than auto manufacturers "owe" you cheap cars. It's a business. Grow the fuck up.

[Dr_Phibes]

So if it's a business, why is the US paying the highest per-capita rate in the world? The costliness is second to none.

The quality is top notch, but as an analogy, I'd pay three dollars for five apples, rather than twenty dollars for six. It's completely wasteful.

I know that this is the politics forum and not theology, so I hate to bring up money*, but from a practical perspective, it's simply in the national interest to have as many healty, productive citizens as possible. Your arguements for the private profit motive in health care are counter to the nations interest - you cannot equate car ownership or internet access to physical health.

Your arguement for profit as a motive is bullshit aswell. While it is true that people require an incentive to work, it does not follow that a private owner, a capitalist, is the only being capable of providing that stimulus. One could argue that the state or the community is at least equally as capable. That's socialism. Every state-owned industry is socialism. The postal service industry is socialism. The army is socialism.







*you know, fethishism, the supernatural - invoking imaginary powers into a peice of paper that simply don't exist in the real world. Remember Mike... science.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

[Mike the Lab Rat]

So if it's a business, why is the US paying the highest per-capita rate in the world? The costliness is second to none.

Maybe the fact that Americans are notoriously obese thanks to their poor diets and lack of exercise may play a role. Toss in all the cancer-promoting crap in our diets. Toss in the unnecessary diagnostic tests that doctors order to cover their legal asses when whiney hypochondriacs insist that they DO have whatever disease they saw on ER, Scrubs, House, TLC, etc. (this last point is actually brought up in theissue of Consumer Reports I got in the mail today...).

Your arguements for the private profit motive in health care are counter to the nations interest - you cannot equate car ownership or internet access to physical health.

I can and did. There's no reason not to - medicine is a SERVICE, a COMMODITY, not a freaking holy order. No one is "entitled" to the wares of medicine (including the drugs) just because they demand them, much less at a cheap price.

And there HAVE been asinine arguments that driving is a "right," with these dim-witted advocates arguing that everyone from illegal aliens to multiple-DUI offenders "deserve" to be licensed and allowed to drive so that they can get to employment, go to the store for food, etc. hell, there's probably been similar dumbass arguments for cheap or free internet access using the same "it's a necessity in our modern world" horseshit. Just because some whiney little bitches want a service to be cheap or free does not make that service a "right," no matter how much you wish it to be so. Drug companies create new medicines that never existed before - they have earned the right to charge what the market will bear. If they overcharge, no one buys the drug or too few can purchase it, and they lose money. If a minority can't afford the drug, ah well, them's the breaks. Some can't afford nice clothes, a house, a car, iPods...that doesn't mean that the government (or some "central planning committee" of citizens) has the right to steal the merchandise -or blackmail the vendors- and give it to folks. The whole argument of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is nothing more than a transparent rationalization for outright theft. Period.

Your arguement for profit as a motive is bullshit aswell. While it is true that people require an incentive to work, it does not follow that a private owner, a capitalist, is the only being capable of providing that stimulus. One could argue that the state or the community is at least equally as capable.

Then let the government do its own pharmaceutical research IN ADDITION TO letting the private sector do its bit. I'd bet the farm that the endless streams of red tape, levels of bureaucracy, and political agendas of those who dole out the funding and do the hiring will guarantee that the government's efforts will lag behind those of the private sector (as happened with the human genome project, which stalled so badly that Ventner bolted to do the research faster his own way). The profit motive works. Just because it doesn't give you the results you want, doesn't mean it doesn't work. I like the fact that smart folks who work hard are getting the wages to buy land, cars, frivolous toys, and giving coffeehouse leftists fits.

I'm guessing that a government led by a president who thinks that intelligent design is acceptable science to teach kids isn't the best one to deal with cutting-edge biological research.

[smackaholic]

Your arguement for profit as a motive is bullshit aswell. While it is true that people require an incentive to work, it does not follow that a private owner, a capitalist, is the only being capable of providing that stimulus. One could argue that the state or the community is at least equally as capable. That's socialism. Every state-owned industry is socialism. The postal service industry is socialism. The army is socialism.

your right there, comrade. I'm sure "Shut the fukk up and get to work or it's off to the gulag with you" was responsible for alot of work getting done.

is this what you want, dumbfuk?

what happens when the guy providing the "incentive" isn't on the same wavelength as you?

[BSmack]

I'm guessing that a government led by a president who thinks that intelligent design is acceptable science to teach kids isn't the best one to deal with cutting-edge biological research.

That is why I always recommend voting for candidates who don't believe in ID.

Though I do have to ask, from where does the "right" to charge for lifesaving medicine come? Would Jesus charge copays?

[Mister Bushice]

I'm guessing that a government led by a president who thinks that intelligent design is acceptable science to teach kids isn't the best one to deal with cutting-edge biological research.

That is why I always recommend voting for candidates who don't believe in ID.

Though I do have to ask, from where does the "right" to charge for lifesaving medicine come? Would Jesus charge copays?

Does conversion to Christianity count as a copay?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Though I do have to ask, from where does the "right" to charge for lifesaving medicine come?

From the exact same place as the right to charge for ANY service or commodity.

Would Jesus charge copays?

To paraphrase JC: "Render unto Pfizer the things that are Pfizer's, ...."

[BSmack]

Though I do have to ask, from where does the "right" to charge for lifesaving medicine come?

From the exact same place as the right to charge for ANY service or commodity.

So where would that be? From what or who does that right derive?

Would Jesus charge copays?

To paraphrase JC: "Render unto Pfizer the things that are Pfizer's, ...."

In the age of the corporate state, that is very "appropopos"

sin

Egodonor

[BSmack]

From the exact same place as the right to charge for ANY service or commodity.

So where would that be? From what or who does that right derive?

It isn't a "right", you fucking moron. Do you have a "right" to plummet to the earth after jumping off a cliff?

This is a question for Christians. Atheists need not apply.

[Dr_Phibes]

I can and did. There's no reason not to - medicine is a SERVICE, a COMMODITY, not a freaking holy order. No one is "entitled" to the wares of medicine (including the drugs) just because they demand them, much less at a cheap price.

Nice rant - they're amusing, but you're all over the place. You're raving against the complete socialisation of medicine which goes in all sorts of directions. Values, use values - the double nature of commodities and you're mixing up luxery items with a service that is essential to basic human survival (food, shelter, medicine).

In terms of socialised insurance, absolutely nothing you've said applies.

With a single payer you are dealing with the economy of scale. There is a massive amount of money in a single pool that allows you to purchase on a massive scale - thus, it's cheaper.

When you go to the 'Bulk Barn' or whatever and buy a massive fuck-off bag of beef jerkey or eighty roles of toilet paper, are you being a whiney little shithead because you saved a bit of cash? Who exactly is getting ripped off when buying in volume?

It's simply a method of PAYMENT. It's cheaper. Money being flushed down the toilet to support literally thousands of insurance companies, all doing the exact same thing and extorting a profit from resources that could be better spent on other essentials. It's only logical to streamline them. And with the added advantage of being state run you've eliminated all the perverse incentives insurance companies use, (ie: creamskinning - insure only low risk cases, reducing the likelihood that you'll have to pay out claims, and virtually defeating the purpose of a large scale insurance plan). If there is no incentive to turn a profit, there is less incentive to offer 'second best' service. The government is content to run the system at cost - collecting the necessary funds through taxation and no more.

[Kierland]

From the exact same place as the right to charge for ANY service or commodity.

Like police protection or fire suppression.

You carry water for BigPharm, we get it.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

From the exact same place as the right to charge for ANY service or commodity.

Like police protection or fire suppression.

Police and firefighters are civil servants, jackass, and go into their profession knowing that.

Molecular biologists are not.

You carry water for BigPharm, we get it.

And you're a whiney little bitch. That has been more than adequately established.

Just because you really, really, want a product doesn't mean that you should get it cheap or free from the manufacturer or that your neighbors should have to subsidize your getting it. You must have been one spoiled little brat as a kid.

Just because I understand the cold, hard facts of life and you don't and I know a hell of a lot more about scientific research than you do, doesn't mean I'm "carrying water" for pharmaceutical companies. It just means that you are, in mvscal's patented phrase, "an ignorant dumbfuck."

[Kierland]

Police and firefighters are civil servants, jackass, and go into their profession knowing that.

Molecular biologists are not.

But they should be.

Why are you such a black-hearted fuck?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Police and firefighters are civil servants, jackass, and go into their profession knowing that.

Molecular biologists are not.

But they should be.

Why? Just because you want their wares cheaply and would like to lump them in the "noble, self-sacrificing" bin in order to do so?

Get a frigging grip. Molecular biologists and biochemists are high tech engineers. Period.

Why are you such a black-hearted fuck?

"Black-hearted?" Because I don't subscribe to your kindergarten view of the world, in which things are just given to you?

You're going to start crying any minute now, aren't you?

[BSmack]

Mike,

I'm still waiting for an answer as to where our fundamental liberties derive. I see many apparent contradictions between your political and spiritual beliefs. Is there a resolution?

[Kierland]

Why?

For the same reasons cops and firefighters are paid by the Government.

Molecular biologists and biochemists are high tech engineers.

I didn't know there was a ban on them working for the same people as the cops and firefighters.

Because I don't subscribe to your kindergarten view of the world, in which things are just given to you?

Given the same way I am "given" police and fire protection? Yes, like that.

You're going to start crying any minute now, aren't you?

Why would I? I have poilce and fire protection "given" to me. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

[Kierland]

Mike,

I'm still waiting for an answer as to where our fundamental liberties derive.

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

Sin,
Hamilton

[poptart]

I seriously doubt that Kierland has ever had to earn a living.
Still clinging to the fairytale that he's entitled to a lot of stuff ........ just 'cuz.
Don't ask how it gets paid for.

70, ... 80% of your income stripped away by the gov. to pay for all the 'free' stuff you want folks to have?
Sounds kosher?

Utopia.

[Goober McTuber]

Queerland has to be trolling. If not, he has to be a Communist. Wonder what he does for a living/wants to be when he grows up?

[BSmack]

Queerland has to be trolling. If not, he has to be a Communist. Wonder what he does for a living/wants to be when he grows up?

I think he wants to be a fireman.

But seriously, he raises a valid point. Be he troll or not, nobody here seems capable of offering a valid response as to why police and fire protection should be publicly provided services and medicine should not be. You do know that fire service was not always a public service?

[SG's Son]

PNAC, who has openly and publically plotted to overthrow the American government, is getting its wish.

A lie.

BTW-10 years ago, PNAC listed an Iraq invasion as their top priority, regardless whether Saddam was still in power or not

A deliberate distortion. BTW-10 years ago, regime change in Iraq became the official foreign policy position of the United States of America with regard to Iraq.

Next on their long-term agenda was an invasion of Iran, regardless of government.

Another lie.

Gee, I wonder what's going to happen next?

You will regurgitate more lying bullshit.

PNAC might not be able to rig the electronic voting machines...

Right on cue.

Wrong.

[BSmack]

But seriously, he raises a valid point.

No he doesn't. Law enforcement should be a public service because the administration of justice and the law is a crystal clear government function. Frankly there is no reason for fire protection to be a public service and for most our history it wasn't. Even today there are large numbers of privately operated EMT services.

So why can't there be both privately and publicly operated health care services?

Oh wait, there already are. We're just arguing over price.

[Goober McTuber]

Health care services is a little broader topic than pharmaceutical companies, and pharmaceutical companies was what Queerland was addressing. I can understand the government administering police and fire departments. But I don’t want my government building fire engines and police cars.

[BSmack]

Health care services is a little broader topic than pharmaceutical companies, and pharmaceutical companies was what Queerland was addressing. I can understand the government administering police and fire departments. But I don’t want my government building fire engines and police cars.

OK, then how about the government purchasing the drugs from private makers via a competitive bidding process and then redistributing the drugs at cost?

Sounds like a win/win. Well, unless you're Bill Frist.

[Goober McTuber]

Health care services is a little broader topic than pharmaceutical companies, and pharmaceutical companies was what Queerland was addressing. I can understand the government administering police and fire departments. But I don’t want my government building fire engines and police cars.

OK, then how about the government purchasing the drugs from private makers via a competitive bidding process and then redistributing the drugs at cost?

I believe the high costs of drugs at least somewhat relates to pharmaceutical companies having patents on specific drugs. Hard to have a competitive bidding process on unique products.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Mike,

I'm still waiting for an answer as to where our fundamental liberties derive. I see many apparent contradictions between your political and spiritual beliefs. Is there a resolution?

My religious beliefs include the concept that altruism cannot be compulsory, which is what the crypto-socialist (or troll) Kierland is advocating. That is completely in accord with my political beliefs.

I am not one of those who believes that religious beliefs justify undermining the rights of others, ESPECIALLY if that means using the government edicts and punishment to force compliance to my religious beliefs.

There is nothing in Christ's teachings that justify stealing patents from pharmaceutical companies in order to redistribute them for the "greater good of humanity." Anyone who claims otherwise is either a moron or an complete liar.

If the government wants cheaper pharmaceuticals, then let THEM hire the researchers, technicians, etc., purchase the reagents and equipment and then spend the years in CREATING the new drugs. Keep in mind, however, that private companies should still be allowed to do their own work in the field so as to prevent a taxpayer-funded and government-enforced monopoly. I'd bet anything that the private companies will crank out better quality and more frequent product.

[Kierland]

My religious beliefs include the concept that altruism cannot be compulsory, which is what the crypto-socialist (or troll) Kierland is advocating.

I said you have your morals and I shouldn't think I can go changing them. Sounds a lot like "altruism cannot be compulsory" to me. Don't let what I said get in your way though.

If the government wants cheaper pharmaceuticals, then let THEM hire the researchers, technicians, etc., purchase the reagents and equipment and then spend the years in CREATING the new drugs.

Sounds a lot like the goverment should pay them like they do the cops and firefighters.

mvscal,
Back in the day (Be it 4 or 40 Centuries ago) there were no gov cops. We've evolved since then.
Back in the day (You pick the date) there were no gov fire fighters. We've evolved since then...

[Mikey]

If the government wants cheaper pharmaceuticals, then let THEM hire the researchers, technicians, etc., purchase the reagents and equipment and then spend the years in CREATING the new drugs. Keep in mind, however, that private companies should still be allowed to do their own work in the field so as to prevent a taxpayer-funded and government-enforced monopoly. I'd bet anything that the private companies will crank out better quality and more frequent product.

If you think that the government doesn't pay for a large portion of pharmaceutical research and development then you're either a lot more naive or just ill informed than I ever would have expected.

[Dr_Phibes]

There is nothing in Christ's teachings that justify stealing patents from pharmaceutical companies

Now that's just plain weird.

[Mister Bushice]

Considering that Jesus picked up a slab of bread at a party and said "this is my body" I'd have to say that the dude Jesus probably has pharmaceutical patent precedence BODE over all mankind, unless companies like Pfizer and Merck & Co. can provide receipts predating that awesome 35 AD party Jesus hosted.


Hell, Jesus might just have grounds for his own lawsuit against them.


I guess we'll have to wait to see if he comes back...




They say he will.




They call it "The Rapture".





Now THAT sounds like a PARTY.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

If the government wants cheaper pharmaceuticals, then let THEM hire the researchers, technicians, etc., purchase the reagents and equipment and then spend the years in CREATING the new drugs. Keep in mind, however, that private companies should still be allowed to do their own work in the field so as to prevent a taxpayer-funded and government-enforced monopoly. I'd bet anything that the private companies will crank out better quality and more frequent product.

If you think that the government doesn't pay for a large portion of pharmaceutical research and development then you're either a lot more naive or just ill informed than I ever would have expected.

Define "large portion," and then try to explain how this "large portion" should rationalize the theft of patents by not just the United States, but by OTHER nations (as they threaten to do when they "bargain" for lower prices).

If the fact that the government does throw some $$$ to pharamceutical companies somehow in your mind justifies extorting lower prices for drugs, then apply that logic to ALL the other industries that the federal, state & local governments insist on tainting with our taxes (agriculture, business)...that is one hell of a scary slippery slope.

Kieland - you ARE trying to make altruism compulsory if you argue that pharmaceutical companies somehow have an obligation to provide their products at a lower price (despite the investment of time & funds put in) solely because you have decided those products are different from all others and are "owed" to the populace. That's hogwash. They don't owe you a damned thing, other than to make sure that their product works as advertised and safely.

Equating biochemical researchers to police officers is just plain stupid. Biologists and chemists who want to work as public servants do so (in forensics labs, in the EPA, in the DEC, etc.) and are paid as such. Those who do pharmaceutical work are doing it to make $$$ creating cures and treatments for not just life-threatening illnesses, but also for crap like erectile dysfunction, baldness, cosmetic treatments, spray-on tans, etc. They go where the $$$ is.

[PSUFAN]

Bush says "very optimistic" on Mideast peace

Ah yes, this thread isn't going anywhere.

"I am very optimistic that we can achieve a two-state solution," Bush said in comments on Al Arabiya television that were dubbed in Arabic.

Has this half-wit learned NOTHING about the MidEast since he seized power in 2000? Sure, Dub - just snap your fingers and get that 2 state solution.

[Mikey]

If the government wants cheaper pharmaceuticals, then let THEM hire the researchers, technicians, etc., purchase the reagents and equipment and then spend the years in CREATING the new drugs. Keep in mind, however, that private companies should still be allowed to do their own work in the field so as to prevent a taxpayer-funded and government-enforced monopoly. I'd bet anything that the private companies will crank out better quality and more frequent product.

If you think that the government doesn't pay for a large portion of pharmaceutical research and development then you're either a lot more naive or just ill informed than I ever would have expected.

Define "large portion," and then try to explain how this "large portion" should rationalize the theft of patents by not just the United States, but by OTHER nations (as they threaten to do when they "bargain" for lower prices).

Where did I say anything about stealing patents? I was responding to what you wrote in the paragraph I quoted. Nice deflection, anyway.

The government DOES hire the researchers, technicians, etc., purchase the reagents and equipment, mostly through grants, to institutions who then spend years in research, to the tune of $28 billion a year at the NIH. A lot of companies benefit from this research. And they are certainly free NOT to sell their product anywhere where they're forced to "bargain" for lower prices. Strangely, they do anyway. I wonder why that is?

Based on what you've written, maybe the government should stop funding basic research. We'd probably end up with better quality and more frequent and product.

[Mikey]

Define "large portion"

How would you define "large portion"?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Where did I say anything about stealing patents? I was responding to what you wrote in the paragraph I quoted. Nice deflection, anyway.

Stealing patents refers to the tactic employed by nations like Brazil, in which they threaten drug companies with stealing the patents for AIDS drugs, and the morally dubious (but, oh-so-lofty-minded) intellectual theft that gors by the name of "compulsory licensing." YOU may not have directly brought it up, but it has been frequently referenced by me in this thread, so it WAS pertinent and not a "deflection." It's not all about you, bub.

A lot of companies benefit from this research. And they are certainly free NOT to sell their product anywhere where they're forced to "bargain" for lower prices. Strangely, they do anyway. I wonder why that is?

Because if they don't countries have threatened to steal the patent and have a chemical plant in their own country zip out a home-brewed version of the drug without paying a dime to the drug company that created the drug. That's what Brazil did with Abbott's AIDS drugs.

BTW, I know exactly how the government funding of science and drug companies all work. It was kind of what I dealt with for over a decade in my old job.

[LTS TRN 2]

M-Rat, you have long ago shot your wad, and now are left a ranting Ayn Rand tranny bitch after five cups of coffee.

Your "Free Market" approach, which underscores all of your diatribe, is childish and simplistic. You don't seem to understand that your adolescent phase of Individualism run long is a tedious and tired affair.

Of course there should be a competitive bidding process for generic drugs conducted by the government on behalf of the people. What fucking planet on you pretending to be on?

The pharmaceutical giants for whom you duly squat in the "presenting" pose are not to be blown (as Ayn Rand would love to have done each CEO), but to be controlled by the people--like energy companies and military institutions. You really need to WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

[Mike the Lab Rat]

M-Rat, you have long ago shot your wad, and now are left a ranting Ayn Rand tranny bitch after five cups of coffee.

As if YOUR rants on every topic haven't become the same tedious, scroll-wheel-killing cyber-diarrhea, complete with the childish tagline of "wakey wake."

Your "Free Market" approach, which underscores all of your diatribe, is childish and simplistic. You don't seem to understand that your adolescent phase of Individualism run long is a tedious and tired affair.

Your petulant tirades are the perfect exemplar for "childish and simplistic." Like a kid with Asperger's syndrome, you manage to desperately steer almost every topic to a paranoid focus - against Israel, free markets, and well, America in general. You've even decided that the pseudo-intellectual question "Who are you defending and why?' is some kind of worthy statement to make in response to an opposing view. Your entire "philosophy" consists of caffeine-laced screaching tagged with the bumper-sticker summaries of either "Wakey Wake" or "Who are you defending and why?"

Of course there should be a competitive bidding process for generic drugs conducted by the government on behalf of the people. What fucking planet on you pretending to be on?

One in which the herd mentality is to be resisted. One in which your mindless, collectivist worship of the hive mentality is considered to be nothing more than the childish desire for the "state" to take care of us.

Be a fucking adult and take care of your own damned self. The world, including any and all of your neighbors, doesn't owe you a damned thing other than to let you live your life in a way that doesn't infringe on our rights.

The pharmaceutical giants for whom you duly squat in the "presenting" pose are not to be blown (as Ayn Rand would love to have done each CEO), but to be controlled by the people--like energy companies and military institutions.

Why? Because you and your similarly "enlightened" friends have decided that you want the products of pharmaceutical companies cheaper? THAT is childish. What next? Are you and your "wiser" contingent going to decide that the food supplies are too important for farmers, agribusinesses, etc. to independently provide and price and take them over in the name of "the common good?" Are clothing manufacturers then next on the list? (keep in mind that some municipalities don't charge tax on some types of clothing SPECIFICALLY because they are considered a "necessity") What about automobiles? Internet access? Where does your desire to take over industries in the name of "the common good" stop, LTS Chavez?

You really need to WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

And right on cue, you bust out the bumper sticker.

You truly are a one-trick pony...

Edit: By the way, for all your constant claims to tag me as a follower of Ayn Rand, the fact is that I've never read any of her works. From what I happened to find out about her philosophies this week (via conversations with colleagues and internet sites), spurred by our district getting boxes of free copies of "Anthem" and "The Fountainhead" from the Ayn Rand Institute, is that she and I fundamentally disagree on the concept of altruism and self-sacrifice. I believe that altruism and self-sacrifice are among the highest virtues of an individual or group - HOWEVER that altruism must be completely voluntary and not compelled by the power of the state (e.g., through nationalization of formerly private industries, the use of taxation to redistribute wealth, etc.). As I stated in my reply to Bri, there is no disconnect between my personal Christian religious beliefs and my libertarian political views - my choice to perform altruistic actions are in accord with my religion, while my opposition to forcing others to follow my religious convictions (especially through use of government force) are in accord with my political views.

[Kierland]

Kieland - you ARE trying to make altruism compulsory if you argue that pharmaceutical companies somehow have an obligation to provide their products at a lower price (despite the investment of time & funds put in) solely because you have decided those products are different from all others and are "owed" to the populace.

Pull your head out of your ass. I'm not asking for you to give up your Dr. any more than I'm asking you to give up your bodyguard. I am only asking for basic health care to be available the same way basic police and fire protection is available.
You want Laissez faire economics? YOU pay for it.