Question for universal health care advocates

[Smash255]

Decisions will actually be made on how it could impact someone's else, not how it impacts some Corporate fat cat's bottom line. 

[Smash255]

Also, if the government fails at something, the people can vote them out of office. People can't vote a corporation out of office.

Well, not directly. Someone could "vote" for Walmart over Costco by shopping there. If a corporation fails to make a profit, which can be obtained by having enough "votes", then they go out of buisiness. Conversely, corporations that make profits by having enough "votes" prosper. Presumably, people will "vote", as in buy from, for the corporation that provides the lowest cost and the best customer service. Considering that this happens on a quarterly basis (because that is when corporations get their profits), while government elections happen on a two year cycle, that would mean that corporations reflect the electorate 8 times better than the government.

However,  if a corporation can make the higher profit by having higher costs and fewer customers as opposed to more customers and lower cost they will, and that is the line they are going down.  They realize by having prices as high as they are they may have less customers than they would if their prices were lower, but they can still make a higher profit.  Decisions should be based on how it can help people, not how it helps corporate fat cats bottom line.

[Smash255]

Also, if the government fails at something, the people can vote them out of office. People can't vote a corporation out of office.

Well, not directly. Someone could "vote" for Walmart over Costco by shopping there. If a corporation fails to make a profit, which can be obtained by having enough "votes", then they go out of buisiness. Conversely, corporations that make profits by having enough "votes" prosper. Presumably, people will "vote", as in buy from, for the corporation that provides the lowest cost and the best customer service. Considering that this happens on a quarterly basis (because that is when corporations get their profits), while government elections happen on a two year cycle, that would mean that corporations reflect the electorate 8 times better than the government.

However,  if a corporation can make the higher profit by having higher costs and fewer customers as opposed to more customers and lower cost they will, and that is the line they are going down.  They realize by having prices as high as they are they may have less customers than they would if their prices were lower, but they can still make a higher profit.  Decisions should be based on how it can help people, not how it helps corporate fat cats bottom line.

I am talking about the ideal capitalistic health care system, not the only partially capitalistic system we have currently. Under a free market, market incenive will be have more customers for lower cost. Only under a government subsidized system that we currently have can the opposite happen. Under government subsidies, corporations don't have to consider customer satisfaction because they make money no matter what. In a truly capitalist society, what benefits a corporation will also benefit the lower and middle classes. It is truly in the best interests of corporate fat cats to have socialized health care because they don't have to spend money to insure customer satisfaction. It is the lower and middle classes who suffer in a socialized system.

Not exactly.  In a truly capitalistic system profit by these corporations are still put above anything else, thats all they will care about.  Highest profit possible, and that often leads to policies and costs that leave the middle and lower class either unable to afford it, or pay it and lose something else that is needed.  decisions will still be made on a pro-profit basis and that is exactly what is wrong with our current system.