20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? (5/6)

I actually used this plan for myself at my previous place of employment. Instead of opting for the companies insurance plan, I took the money I wouldve been spending on health insurance and placed it in a savings account w/ a high savings yield. It totaled to almost $2500 a year into that account. Since me and my wife rarely go to see a doctor, that money stacked right up. When we did see a doctor, we made sure we only got treatments or medicines that were needed.

Be responsible for yourself.

was there a boycott for whole foods

so far that is the smartest thing i heard!

Edit: my question was made towards
teutonicpenguin. Sorry for the confusion.

@teutonicpenguin : I think you missed my point. I was not asking if the market is efficient/inefficient, I was asking what do you believe should happen to those who want to participate in what you believe to be a peaceful but flawed method of organization.

Okay, for the sake of argument lets say that the free market is a greed-filled and somehow thus "evil", inefficient system that screws anyone who voluntarily works within said system and despite this and all of your attempts to convince me that your system was better, I still wish to participate in the system. What do you think should happen to me?

Capitalism isn't inefficient it's exactly the opposite (no waste). There are many advantages of it and I'm not suggesting we should be socialists.

But, for example if we had total capitalism, there would be no social security. Anyone who couldn't work and didn't have money saved up (say a fired cleaner - or low paid worker - who could only just afford to live on their earnings, or a disabled person) would have no income and wouldn't be able to afford food etc.

and becoming socialist (FDR) did not get us out. in fact it was capitalism that got us out as well. when we entered ww2, demand rose up considerably, and the economy got back on track. thing is, you guys don't have that many people. in the U.S, social security is going bankrupt (and that just pays for people 65 and above). and if you guys are pretty much the only people not dealing with near bankrupt healthcare, then universal healthcare is not going to be good.

That's a moot point - capitalism got you out but you had capitalism when you went into it! Are you an idiot?

No, the 'thing is', we spend less than half what the US does per person on healthcare - that's why we're not bankrupt. See 'Health care in Australia Vs US 08-15-09', on YouTube.

I'm not suggesting you become socialists. I am suggesting pure capitalism is a stupid idea - you can have your markets but you need SOME regulation. And SOME regulation does not mean socialism!

yeah, and and my proposition would LOWER costs, by increasing competition.

I know we need SOME regulation. what you are proposing is not regulation. it is control. that's what all liberals seem to confuse. regulation is a watchful eye. control is when the government takes over. i don't want the government to take over, because government control is always less efficient than the private sector.

HSA's need government money, im just saying that people should decide what they get.