And in this specific case you’re obviously wrong as health care is cheaper per person in the nations with universal government run coverage.

Because they’re not concerned with profit.

No, it's because they can set whatever price the government desires. Profit is not the issue. Indeed, what you call profit in the private market is called "pork" in government. I leave it to you to educate yourself on that subject as well.

Government-run does not mean "cheaper". Refer to the legendary $5,000 toilet seats for a useful reference.

Huh, really? You should explain that to your local credit union.

My tax-exempt local credit union? I did say 'in a fair market,' didn't I? Yes, I'm sure I did.

And in this specific case you’re obviously wrong as health care is cheaper per person in the nations with universal government run coverage.

Because they’re not concerned with profit.

Whether health care is cheaper or not, this argument is fallacious. Whether or not government run healthcare is cheaper, the claim that 'A' causes 'B' is not supported by evidence that 'B' is true. Even if you say "because of A" afterward.

Flaws like the company pulling coverage because they don't want to pay out? More feature than flaw.

>And of course, profit is evil,

Ha! Ha! Yes that's what I said!

>I wrote a post perhaps a month ago with about five or six links full of proof.

That's weird how in those posts you felt the need to provide proof but here not so much. Convenient that. Is there a link explaining how the rest of the Western world is really under a tyranny as well?

>Actually no. That’s not the point of an insurance company.

…

Really? They're not doing it for profit? Wow, why are they doing it then? Why do they refuse to pay out for "experimental treatments" or "preexisting conditions" I wonder?

>In a fair market? Yes. Really.

(Except in the very short term, or the very small scale–for instance, any business can be cheaper than the competition by selling at a loss.)

Huh, really? You should explain that to your local credit union.

And in this specific case you're obviously wrong as health care is cheaper per person in the nations with universal government run coverage.

Because they're not concerned with profit.

But apparently that's only because America doesn't have universal health care and everyone else "piggybacks" on it… somehow. Like many of the JimmieFacts in this thread that point remains unsubstantiated and unexplained.

So, are you saying that for-profit businesses are cheaper for the consumer than not-for-profit?

Really?

In a fair market? Yes. Really.

(Except in the very short term, or the very small scale–for instance, any business can be cheaper than the competition by selling at a loss.)

Glad I could help clear that up for you.

It’s fascinating that you don’t seem to get the point of an insurance company, it’s not to help people, it’s to sell stuff at a profit. And again normally that’s a great thing but not when it kills people or degrades their lives.

Actually no. That's not the point of an insurance company. But since you really don't get economics, explaining how insurance works isn't likely to help all that much.

Uh oh! It’s a JimmieFact! Jimmie says something crazy (still waiting to hear about the tyranny thing) and when asked to provide some sort of proof…?

Again, hie thee to the archives. I wrote a post perhaps a month ago with about five or six links full of proof. Do your homework before hitting the "submit reply" button.

Europe's healthcare doesn't match our own. Do they have more universal access? NO They have more universal insurance coverage, but insurance coverage for second-rate healthcare is not better than first-rate healthcare with some insurance coverage flaws.

Gee, Mr. Salvage, should I assume you are troll-ing, or that your mental powers can't fathom how 34 industries could have profit margins in the 0-3% range? And of course, profit is evil, because it's just money that sits in a safe and does nothing…