You have just explained the problem with bureaucracies and explained why the gov't cannot and will not ever reduce costs (if they do it's a false reduction because of subsidies).

...and what is the best way to accomplish this? Competition. Two or more (preferably) insurance companies selling the same thing ensures costs will be reduced and profits minimized. Notice these health care boondoggle in congress doesn't open up competition over state lines. Also, if government is the sole provider, what gives them incentive to keep costs down? They would be the only game in town, and charge whatever they want.

Again back to my question:  Please tell me in your mind where it is ok to make a profit and where it is not ok?

what defines this 'greater integrity' for profits?

And what is your definition of 'modest compensation?

and who gets to decide what they are and why?

 

Even in charities there is overhead which many perceive as perks which should really only be a fair compensation for servicing the common good.

Obviously, enlightened altruistic sharing after the company's horizons are met to sustain its entity.

I know you're pulling my leg but I'll answer it anyway by denying Wall Street bonuses. Most probably its structured on minimal salary because they work on commission--that's sufficient. A Christmas bonus might be in the works but a $100 will do nicely. 

This is but the standard, trite cut to the quick--you know, "who made you God?" Still, we the people muddle along and try to the best we can in decisionmaking. Alas, we are light years away from a body of philosopher kings. 

Not really, Medicare and Medicaid have a history of keeping down costs. That's why physicians resist. Yet doctors make more money than they ever did before enactment.

You're joking right? LINK and here

The truth is that there is no "person" or "cabal" dictating the bonuses.  It is competition.  Simply put, you do not go to work for the employer who pays you the least (otherwise everyone would be working for McDonalds), you seek to maximize your worth.  So employers who want to get the best people pay for it - and that comes in many different forms.  On wall street, that is mega bonuses - due to competition.

And why is there competition?  because so few can do what they do well.  If everyone could, then the job would be worth nothing and McDonalds would be competing with them.

Cream rises to the top (along with some crud - cant be helped).  If you try to artificially restrict it in one area, it will just move to another.  Even in the most totalitarian states, some are more equal than others.  regardless of mind set.  The simple fact is that there has never been a society (beyond a village of a few dozen people) where everyone gets the same.  The only difference between Capitalism and communism/Socialism is that capitalism (for the most part - nothing is absolute) rewards productivity, the other rewards corruption.

And what is the 'fair compensation for servicing the common good.'  What is the standard of 'fair compensation'?

Can you give me something tangible or objective to work with here?   What you refer to is like a sharing a subjective utopia.  Please give me something besides just using another subjective way to say the same thing you said in the first place.

Actually I'm not trying to pull your leg.  I want to put some objectability to your answers.  So far all I've heard from you is similarly to the Miss America pagent's classic response of, "World Peace."  While intentions are all great but no one explains what they mean by World Peace in a obejectifiable way. 

As I understand what you are saying, Wall Street bonuses are limited to $100 for Christmas?  Is there room for inflation adjustment or only cap of $100?

So if we are light years away from a body of philosopher kings how then do you see what you refer to as actually something attainable?

Interesting link but merely indicates the more left uninsured the greater growth of Medicaid--growth is not the same as cost cutting. Ditto for Medicare--the more aged, the more growth. The wild west is over, the more compassionate and enlightened concerning the common good, the greater the expense.

 

Why do you persist in comparing our capitalism with a  dead system that proved ninety years ago that a system designed for philosophers could not be run by thugs. But thugs are in Wall Street, too, and should be treated as such, not rewarded.

Got some evidence to back this up? 

My step-dad has a practice and ALL his clients are on Medicaid or Medicare.  He doesn't make much more than I do!  The doctors that are making more money are specialists or in a network that benefits through pharmas and private insurance.  Medicaid and Medicare's history for keeping costs down is not paying doctors for their services and making them do more paperwork than the private sector.  They own a small condo that is meager.  Nothing fancy.  The doctors that are making more money than ever are NOT taking Gov't insurance.

Just as we are light years from the Stone Age. Though we are uncomfortable with trial and error and wish achievemens came more easily, we still make the effort toward a better world. "Peace on earth goodwill to men" is a drean but we still pursue it.

Now you're just being linguistically silly. Fair is the opposite of undue accolades for performance. Safeguarding other people's money, which made  the company in the first place, should be the key. That is, reinvesting, declaring minimal dividends, opening up ways to a better product, and not blowing the wealth on a handful of executives, though fairly acknowleging their usefulness.

If you want specific answers buy my book Politics Now & Then

http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=404902

 

Your stepfather is obviously fairminded and knows the reality that if he turned his back on his patients they would go without healthcare until the fateful move to the emergency room. It simply is not true that private insurance entails less paper work and quibbling with the doctor over "medical necessity."

I recently had open heart surgery, and the hospital specialists were great and Medicare paid them the bulk and the supplement a very small part, yet the doctors seemed satisfied.

LOL - love your answer.

But you will note I combined socialism with Communism - on purpose actually.  In both cases, the rewards come from the government, not from the workers.  So while communism may be dead (cuba, Vietnam, north Korea and China may argue that point), the core - government control - remains and is the core of socialism (for proof, just look at health care where the mantra is "Government can do it better").

Thugs do exist in Wall street (Geithner anyone???), but then I never said "no government".  Indeed, government (limited) is needed to take care of the Madoffs and Lays (not the chip or street corner variety).  But for every madoff, there are 100 smart, bright people that are earning their money based upon performance.

Again, as you indicate:

In the end, someone or thing or group has to play the part (the BIG Guy does not meddle) and when the market rules, then it is many people, not a Feinberg.

You stinker!  When did you write a new book?

It will make fascinating reading.