Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
There's a difference between profit and costs, dan. Things like wages and R&D are costs, not profit. Drugs can be sold at a price that covers the costs without the need for shareholders to be paid dividends. When it's in private hands, subject to market conditions, the drugs will be sold at whatever people are willing to pay for it, and when we're talking about life, people will pay whatever they can borrow. The excess isn't helping R&D, this isn't paying doctors' salaries, it's making shareholders rich.

If medicine is in public hands, then drugs will be sold at the lowest price possible to cover costs. It's in a nation's interests to ensure public health is as optimal as can be. There is no need for any other incentive other than public health.
The part you're missing is that the price is not a objective quantity. The same product can be made by different means and for different costs. You don't seem to have a problem with the free market when it results in toothbrushes that cost $0.30*, a price that could never have existed if not for a massive economy of scale and fierce competition. You only hate the market when the result is something that only the rich can afford.

*I verified this at a 7/11 in thailand, it was Colgate brand.

Yes, you may be right that a state-based healthcare system will charge only as much as is necessary to cover the costs. But the problem is that it is hard to know how much the cost truly should be without market feedback. With no market pressure, there is much less incentive to economize and innovate. When Samsung and HTC are competing over Android market share, the trend is for either phones to improve in quality or decrease in price. It doesn't matter that they are doing it for profit, the product is still ultimately cheaper and better than it would be if it were produced by a state-based smartphone monopoly.

As for government's hand in healthcare in general, I'm inclined to believe in an "all in or all out" stance. I think the U.S. has the worst of both worlds. I'd rather see a total healthcare state than this hybrid shit, but total free market healthcare would be the best option BY FAR. I think you would be surprised at how cheap healthcare could be if it weren't for all of the regulations and bureaucracies.