Private vs. Public Healthcare (was Re: Rand Paul)

[Xajow]

Interesting you should say that, given the private sector isn't doing so well on their own with the very healthcare we're speaking of and botched our banking situation too, at that.

Actually, the private sector is doing fine on health care. It's health insurance that seems to be the problem, but that is a different discussion. And frankly, the government deserves quite a bit of the blame for the financial situation. But again, that is a different discussion.

[Noelle]

I'd say that the yearly rise of the cost of health care isn't really a sign of doing well. Well, I take that back, their bank accounts are doing well, but it's making it awfully difficult to get health insurance/Medicare on the same boat since they either have to keep up with those rising costs or pass the difference off to the insured, which is what the whole discrepancy is about in terms of the GOP's idea to fire up the voucher system. A voucher that increases 1.5% every year is worth crap when the cost of health care is going up by 3% or more.

[Vekseid]

Hospitals are making 1-3% margins and doctors are similarly stressed, I don't think that's a good definition of 'fine'.

Health insurers, with their 30%-and-rising overhead+margins, are probably on the top, but after that there are
- Medicare underpayment (Responsible for 24% of hospital costs in Hawai'i a few years ago) - though the Health Care Reform law addresses this somewhat, it only starts in earnest in 2014. It's largely due to excessive testing. This is what the 'death panels' cries were about (providing end of life care rather than submitting the elderly to useless test after useless test).
- Patient nonpayment represents about 5% of costs (they usually had insurance initially) - they go bankrupt and can't pay.
- Pharmaceutical profits represent about 4% of overall healthcare costs - they probably don't need the destruction that health insurers deserve, but things could improve there.
- Lack of preventive care is an enormous issue - for diabetes alone, this represents about 4% of excess healthcare costs.
- Rescission operators are estimated to have a similar impact due to taking up valuable time from doctors. 
- This is to say nothing for the overall value of lost labor potential, in general

The end result is that trimming out the fat, we can easily cut health care costs by about two-thirds on a per-patient basis. The end result is, it's very likely that a universal health care program would not necessarily cost much more than medicare+medicaid+tricare does now. 

[RubySlippers]

He did make a telling point he gives up some freedom for privileges, such as rights to treat people at a medical facility and he is right at some point there is a counterpoint right to his right to earn a living as a doctor.

And it does in a way enslave him your saying you must treat this person for less than it costs me to run my practice by force in this case under law.

I didn't see him say reforms are not needed or that the system could not be made better just it has to be fair to providers also.

[Xajow]

I'd say that the yearly rise of the cost of health care isn't really a sign of doing well. Well, I take that back, their bank accounts are doing well, but it's making it awfully difficult to get health insurance/Medicare on the same boat since they either have to keep up with those rising costs or pass the difference off to the insured, which is what the whole discrepancy is about in terms of the GOP's idea to fire up the voucher system. A voucher that increases 1.5% every year is worth crap when the cost of health care is going up by 3% or more.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that the rising costs are somehow entirely the result of the market. As if somehow all of the government actions to deal with health care are totally and completely uninvolved in this situation. I suggest that is not the case.

[Noelle]

Nobody made claim that the government is wholly uninvolved, but we're dealing with a privitized healthcare system. We do not have universal care. We do not have socialized care. The government is not the main sponsor of healthcare right now, so who else are we going to put the bulk of the blame on, exactly? The government probably wasn't wholly uninvolved with the banks, either, but the private sector still get the blame because they royally messed things up themselves and required the government to step in which was arguably a preferable option to the mess we might've been in otherwise.

Truth is, I don't think going wholly in either direction is a good idea. I don't like the idea of pure capitalism because it's already shown that it can't regulate itself consistently. I don't like the idea of pure governmental oversight because it, too, has proven that it can make huge, bungling mistakes. Right now, the balance in the healthcare industry is nowhere close to equal such that you can let the private market fly beneath the crosshairs.

[Xajow]

Nobody made claim that the government is wholly uninvolved, but we're dealing with a privitized healthcare system. We do not have universal care. We do not have socialized care. The government is not the main sponsor of healthcare right now, so who else are we going to put the bulk of the blame on, exactly?

But the government, at federal and state levels, has done a lot to attempt to control health care and how it is paid for. It seems a bit one sided to say because we don't have completely socialized medicine the problems are all the fault of the market. I'm not saying there isn't some fault in the private sector, I'm saying, let's not overlook the contributions government regulations have made to the situation.

The government probably wasn't wholly uninvolved with the banks, either, but the private sector still get the blame because they royally messed things up themselves and required the government to step in which was arguably a preferable option to the mess we might've been in otherwise.

Well, one, that banking/corporate fatcats got the government to give them taxpayer dollars does not mean that it was required. Two, the private sector gets the blame because a lot of people are willing to overlook the contributions of the government to the situation. The idea that somehow the market did this entirely to itself with no help from the government is simply not a realistic portrait of the situation.

Truth is, I don't think going wholly in either direction is a good idea. I don't like the idea of pure capitalism because it's already shown that it can't regulate itself consistently.

Really? When? I cannot recall ever seeing pure capitalism in action. If you mean the financial crisis, one, that wasn't pure capitalism, and two, a down turn in the market is capitalism regulating itself. That the market was propped up until what might have been a short and minor downturn necessarily became a huge and widely damaging downturn is not the fault of capitalism, pure or otherwise.

[Vekseid]

Really? When? I cannot recall ever seeing pure capitalism in action.

We called them company towns.

The corporation owns everything you have access to. You live in the Company village, buy goods in the Company store, and pay with the only currency you are paid in - company scrip. You're not paid enough to cover your needs, but that's okay, the Company will happily 'loan' it to you.

And if you complain too loudly, they'll rape and murder your family while you're away.

Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

And this is relevant. You get enough people to complain too loudly, the Government will just come and massacre you.

[Lilias]

We called them company towns.

The corporation owns everything you have access to. You live in the Company village, buy goods in the Company store, and pay with the only currency you are paid in - company scrip. You're not paid enough to cover your needs, but that's okay, the Company will happily 'loan' it to you.

And if you complain too loudly, they'll rape and murder your family while you're away.

Case in point: Ludlow Massacre.

[Xajow]

We called them company towns.

The corporation owns everything you have access to. You live in the Company village, buy goods in the Company store, and pay with the only currency you are paid in - company scrip. You're not paid enough to cover your needs, but that's okay, the Company will happily 'loan' it to you.

And if you complain too loudly, they'll rape and murder your family while you're away.

That doesn't sound like capitalism to me at all. Sounds like totalitarian socialism as run by a corporation. So not really an example of pure capitalism, unless you think capitalism is just another kind of socialism, and I don't. Maybe you do. I'd argue the point but what came after that in your post really just put me off talking politics with you at all.

Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

And this is relevant. You get enough people to complain too loudly, the Government will just come and massacre you.

Yeah, 'cause then... G'Huh? Then who has to argue what point by point? Minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged? In what way? And what the crap is that bit at the end? Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves? Where did this nonsense come from? Let's see... looking up Kim Stanley Robinson... basically an anti-capitalism sci-fi writer. Oh boy. (Working really hard now not to be sarcastic about choosing a quote from him about libertarianism.) So we're gonna do that now are we?

Sigh.

Nah. Nevermind. I'm not going to respond in kind to that nonsense. As tempting though it may be, it isn't worth my time. If you really believe that kind of falderal, I doubt there is anything I could say to convince you otherwise. Be well and have a nice day.

[Callie Del Noire]

Total Socialism by a Company? Sorry. Company towns are outright unregulated capitalism. The final and end all result of being able to do any damn thing you want for every little cent in and out. You get the material, and you have a captive market of people who are totally beholden to you for everything.

You know if you look at the check list for psychotic behavior by the standards of the World Health Organization, corporate behavior can easily be found to fit all of the criteria.

Corporations have a large measure of the rights accorded to individuals. They have a right to own property, expression and such, but without a large measure of the responsibilities of a person. They are only accountable to their owners and the bottom line.

Corporations aren't responsible, and won't act as such unless as made to do so. It's been proven so. Rockefeller could have given the 10 cent raise and moved on. No one needed to die in Ludow.

Look at the 'health care crisis', how much of the burgeoning costs are actual doctor fees, hospital costs rather than  gouging from other groups? HMOs have made more money than anyone else has in the last 15 years in the medical communities.

'Pure Captialism' without some form of restraint, regulation or control is toxic and counter to the public's interest. Plain and simple. There has to be a careful balance between the two. Regulation, after fair and balanced consideration, is needed. Too much can stifle business, too little gives us problems.

Health Care is a good example of it. Too many interested parties are involved in the current Healthcare issue. Exploitation is going to be rampant in this. We are about TWENTY or THIRTY years late in reforming the lobbying system.

That, in my opinion, is just as important a matter as the housing and medical care crisises.

If we could return the lobbying system to something other than wholesale favoritism for hire, how much pork would we cut from ALL segments of the budget?

And that influence comes from both sides.. to use an example outside the health care debate.. How many times has it been in the last 30 years that a new refinery in the US been stalled and balked? Think about what new from the ground up tech and modern machinery could increase productivity and reduce the side effects of the refinining process? Or how it might have helped the ungodly gas prices of today?

T

[Noelle]

But the government, at federal and state levels, has done a lot to attempt to control health care and how it is paid for. It seems a bit one sided to say because we don't have completely socialized medicine the problems are all the fault of the market. I'm not saying there isn't some fault in the private sector, I'm saying, let's not overlook the contributions government regulations have made to the situation.

But you're largely putting the government at fault for the troubles of the private sector...or something? First you say there's no problems with the private industry and now you're saying there are, but it's the government...It's kind of all over the place, so feel free to clarify if I'm way off-base here. That's really the only discrepancy I'm trying to point out. You're creating an argument that I'm not making. If anything, I have tried to be moderate on the issue and point out that yes, I agree that both sides are to blame at varying levels. From what I gather, you're trying to argue completely against any kind of government intervention in the situation to any degree whatsoever.

Well, one, that banking/corporate fatcats got the government to give them taxpayer dollars does not mean that it was required. Two, the private sector gets the blame because a lot of people are willing to overlook the contributions of the government to the situation. The idea that somehow the market did this entirely to itself with no help from the government is simply not a realistic portrait of the situation.

It seems to me you're overstating it, though. Just because multiple parties are involved doesn't mean they all deserve an equal portion of the blame or an equal portion of the bad publicity for it. It's akin to saying "yes, I burned your house down, but he shat on your welcome mat!" Yes, I recognize the government is not innocent. Yes, we can look at the details and dish out the appropriate blame. Shifting the focus of the blame still doesn't address the shortcomings of the private sector. I wish we could get past this detail.

Really? When? I cannot recall ever seeing pure capitalism in action. If you mean the financial crisis, one, that wasn't pure capitalism, and two, a down turn in the market is capitalism regulating itself. That the market was propped up until what might have been a short and minor downturn necessarily became a huge and widely damaging downturn is not the fault of capitalism, pure or otherwise.

Again, you're creating arguments I haven't made. Let's not read things that aren't there. It was just a general statement that the idea of a purely private sector (something that's more capitalist/free market-based) is just as poor of an idea of something that's purely socialized (I'm more of a fan of the way, say, Australia handles their healthcare market, though even that is not without its faults. Such is life.) Translation: I'm attempting to be moderate about the situation

[Xajow]

Total Socialism by a Company? Sorry. Company towns are outright unregulated capitalism.

Clearly, I disagree.

The final and end all result of being able to do any damn thing you want for every little cent in and out. You get the material, and you have a captive market of people who are totally beholden to you for everything.

Which isn't capitalism. At least in my opinion.

'Pure Captialism' without some form of restraint, regulation or control is toxic and counter to the public's interest. Plain and simple. There has to be a careful balance between the two. Regulation, after fair and balanced consideration, is needed. Too much can stifle business, too little gives us problems.

I would counter that totalitarian authority is what is toxic and counter to the public's interest. Capitalism is a tool of trade, not a system of government. When a corporation acts like a socialist government, owning everything and treating individuals as little more than (if I may be permitted to say it) slave labor who exist to serve the "good of the town", that is a problem of totalitarian authority, not capitalism. I know the tendency is to assume corporation=capitalism, but that simply isn't true.

Which is not to say corporations should be allowed to do anything they please. Of course they shouldn't. But partnering corporations and government via corporate regulations and bailouts and the like does nothing to protect individuals from corporations and quite a lot to make corporations more powerful. Ever more vast numbers of laws, regulations, subsidies, bans and tax favors for corporations do little to nothing to empower the individual. Just ask the guys trying to sell raw milk. Or the women who are basically forced to secretly run hair braiding businesses out of their homes because otherwise they would have to spend several thousand on a cosmetology license to prove they know how to do things they are not ever going to do while braiding hair.

If we could return the lobbying system to something other than wholesale favoritism for hire, how much pork would we cut from ALL segments of the budget?

Until we start severing ties at the government level between corporations in power and politicians in power, you're not going to see that happen.

[Vekseid]

That doesn't sound like capitalism to me at all. Sounds like totalitarian socialism as run by a corporation.

Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company bought the land?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company bought every available business?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company paid ridiculously low wages?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company hired its own security forces?
Was it totalitarian socialism when the Company bought every media outlet?

At what point, exactly, did it become 'totalitarian socialism' as you call it? At what point is the actual purchase of goods and services 'totalitarian socialism', and if it is the final abuse of those privileges, then how does 'pure capitalism' actually stop it?

So not really an example of pure capitalism, unless you think capitalism is just another kind of socialism, and I don't. Maybe you do. I'd argue the point but what came after that in your post really just put me off talking politics with you at all.

Putting words in my mouth doesn't net you any points. Either you admit that their must be legitimate restrictions on the consumption of goods and the imposition of externalities, in which case it is no longer 'pure capitalism', or you accept that yes, 'pure capitalism' does lead to totalitarian regimes, as it has in the past, some of which we are paying for now, as the rentier class acquires property and enslaves the working class with its 'rights'.

Yeah, 'cause then... G'Huh? Then who has to argue what point by point? Minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged? In what way?

Do you want to have your property rights enforced?

You have a home of some kind. Do you expect to fend for your protection entirely on your own, with no legal system to resort to if someone steals from you or injure you, or do you expect to actually have those protections.

And what the crap is that bit at the end? Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves? Where did this nonsense come from?

Libertarianism is essentially a version of anarchism that grants Government two rights - action against fraud and theft, which some libertarians reduce to merely theft ('fraud' being the theft of your right to the truth).

If you don't see how raw capitalism can and has been abused, then I can see why you might think it's 'nonsense', but if you want to understand why people don't take Libertarians seriously - and if you want to understand the reason behind the rising Marxist and Communist movements in this country - then you should probably take the time to examine the logic behind it rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Otherwise, yes, you're going to do nothing but commit ad hominems like

Let's see... looking up Kim Stanley Robinson... basically an anti-capitalism sci-fi writer. Oh boy. (Working really hard now not to be sarcastic about choosing a quote from him about libertarianism.) So we're gonna do that now are we?

Sigh.

Nah. Nevermind. I'm not going to respond in kind to that nonsense. As tempting though it may be, it isn't worth my time. If you really believe that kind of falderal, I doubt there is anything I could say to convince you otherwise. Be well and have a nice day.

Do you think this sort of talk sways anyone?

I do believe that you honestly believe what you are typing. I do not, however, believe that you have thought it through.

If you want to present 'pure capitalism' as the be-all-end-all of society, in order to be taken seriously, you need to explain what measures will be in place to prevent abuse before it happens.

[Xajow]

But you're largely putting the government at fault for the troubles of the private sector...or something? First you say there's no problems with the private industry and now you're saying there are, but it's the government...It's kind of all over the place, so feel free to clarify if I'm way off-base here. That's really the only discrepancy I'm trying to point out. You're creating an argument that I'm not making. If anything, I have tried to be moderate on the issue and point out that yes, I agree that both sides are to blame at varying levels. From what I gather, you're trying to argue completely against any kind of government intervention in the situation to any degree whatsoever.

I am saying that the government is in many ways at fault for things that many wish to solely blame the market.  But I will try to clarify. You said, "Nobody made claim that the government is wholly uninvolved, but we're dealing with a privitized healthcare system. We do not have universal care. We do not have socialized care. The government is not the main sponsor of healthcare right now, so who else are we going to put the bulk of the blame on, exactly?" Which looks to me a lot like saying "Yes, the government was involved, but because cause it wasn't fully in control of everything, what it did is therefore irrelevant, and so we should blame everything on the private sector anyway." Feel free to explain why I'm wrong.

It seems to me you're overstating it, though. Just because multiple parties are involved doesn't mean they all deserve an equal portion of the blame or an equal portion of the bad publicity for it. It's akin to saying "yes, I burned your house down, but he shat on your welcome mat!" Yes, I recognize the government is not innocent. Yes, we can look at the details and dish out the appropriate blame. Shifting the focus of the blame still doesn't address the shortcomings of the private sector. I wish we could get past this detail.

It seems me your understating the responsibility of government. It seems to me a bit like saying, "Yes, the government irresponsibly stored flammable chemicals and materials in that building where the fire started, but let's blame the construction company for not building a better building and the guy who flicked his cigarette out the window for the neighborhood burning down." Okay, that may be a bit exaggerated. But your comparison, imo, implies the government's contribution to the problem is almost not worth noticing. I'm not saying the private corporations didn't screw up. But dismissing government responsibility as if it contributed little or nothing to the problem in the first place seems irresponsible.

Again, you're creating arguments I haven't made.

Not my intention. I am trying to address what you say. I'll try to do better in the future.

Let's not read things that aren't there. It was just a general statement that the idea of a purely private sector (something that's more capitalist/free market-based) is just as poor of an idea of something that's purely socialized (I'm more of a fan of the way, say, Australia handles their healthcare market, though even that is not without its faults. Such is life.) Translation: I'm attempting to be moderate about the situation

Believe me, I am not trying to read things that aren't there. I don't like when other people do that to me. Again, I am just trying to address what you're saying. Part of the problem may be a lack of common understanding of the terms being used. What you mean by "pure capitalism," for example, is apparently not what I think that term means. So maybe we should just call it a draw.

[RubySlippers]

Hospitals are making 1-3% margins and doctors are similarly stressed, I don't think that's a good definition of 'fine'.

Health insurers, with their 30%-and-rising overhead+margins, are probably on the top, but after that there are
- Medicare underpayment (Responsible for 24% of hospital costs in Hawai'i a few years ago) - though the Health Care Reform law addresses this somewhat, it only starts in earnest in 2014. It's largely due to excessive testing. This is what the 'death panels' cries were about (providing end of life care rather than submitting the elderly to useless test after useless test).
- Patient nonpayment represents about 5% of costs (they usually had insurance initially) - they go bankrupt and can't pay.
- Pharmaceutical profits represent about 4% of overall healthcare costs - they probably don't need the destruction that health insurers deserve, but things could improve there.
- Lack of preventive care is an enormous issue - for diabetes alone, this represents about 4% of excess healthcare costs.
- Rescission operators are estimated to have a similar impact due to taking up valuable time from doctors. 
- This is to say nothing for the overall value of lost labor potential, in general

The end result is that trimming out the fat, we can easily cut health care costs by about two-thirds on a per-patient basis. The end result is, it's very likely that a universal health care program would not necessarily cost much more than medicare+medicaid+tricare does now.

I just wanted to add stressing the situation now is no hospital is allwed in most states including Florida to bill a patiant earning under a certain income and with few assets, which they must eat up. Under the new law even the most poverty stricken patiant who is a citizen would get on Mediciad and they would get something for them. How much of a difference wil that make. Add in with preventative care they could get the person might be healthier and not get to that point.

I know in my case I had a bad cellulitus infection they had me five days, pumped me full of antibiotics costing $6000 a day just for that and had to write it all off. My doctors didn't bother collecting that they assigned to treat me once they found out I had few assets. The only bill I had to pay was for the labs and sonagrams of my leg which was $800. And get this after I went to my nearby doctor, couldn't afford the medicine they anted me to take and she managed to finish the courses of antibiotics for $6.00 (a prescription from a $4 drug list drug at the nearby Target). Now what is wrong with this picture she used an older drug for a longer course of treatment when the doctor in the hospital gave me ten pills ina prescription for $1500 if I could even get it. And I told hem over and over I couldn't hope to afford that at the time.

I'm just pointing out people like me that work but are poor do get taxpayers and you paying for us in higher bills or tax subsidies to hospitals when we can't pay in most cases so what is the big deal about this it could end of saving money and helping hospitals and doctors make more money. Or at least offer stable expectations for budget planning.

[Noelle]

It really seems kind of a fruitless debate to me anyway, and not one that I can honestly and whole-heartedly commit to, which isn't fair to you, so I won't waste your time. I didn't expect this conversation to go the direction of private vs. public healthcare, at any rate, so I've said my peace and now I will kindly bow out.

[Xajow]

Putting words in my mouth doesn't net you any points.

[...]

If you want to present 'pure capitalism' as the be-all-end-all of society, in order to be taken seriously, you need to explain what measures will be in place to prevent abuse before it happens.

Putting words in my mouth doesn't net you any points either.

if you want to understand why people don't take Libertarians seriously - and if you want to understand the reason behind the rising Marxist and Communist movements in this country - then you should probably take the time to examine the logic behind it rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Am I supposed to believe that Kim Stanley Robinson quote was some sort of perfectly civil and reasoned argument against libertarianism? If you want to know why I cannot take seriously your comments about libertarianism, your honestly quite ridiculous quote that wholly mischaracterized libertarianism and your comments about me, then you should probably bother to ask me questions rather than just being condescending and accusatory. If, on the other hand, sharing quotes like "That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves" is your idea of discussion, then frankly, I have no interest in a discussion with you.

I have had conversation, and mostly civil ones, with socialist minded folks before. One of them was even a fellow who thought Stalin was misunderstood. I'm all for that. (EDIT-Just to be clear, I'm all for the conversation, not for Stalin.) If all you want is to trade insults about each other's ideology, I've done that before too, and I don't really want to do that anymore.

Do you think this sort of talk sways anyone?

No, it was not meant to sway anyone. It was meant to explain why I didn't bother getting into a pissing match with you. Now here's one for you: Do you really think sharing "That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves" is supposed to make me believe you're interested in an intellectual discussion of libertarian ideas?

[Yorubi]

My take: There should be a public option, and reform to stop the greedy drug companies from just making such huge profits for the sake of holding people's lives in stake.

Public option would allow for people who can't get it elsewhere to obtain it from the government. It would actually force the insurance's companies to actually offer stuff for the people who have their service to give them what they actually pay for. Right now, you pay insurance and in the end, your basically paying far above what stuff would normally cost you if you payed it on your own. Its such a huge scam to people that its sad its made it to the point it is now. Fixing the health system and making it so insurance companies can't just screw over people and companies would make the lives of everyone else so much better. A person's health should NEVER be something for profit.

[Lyell]

There is a key point that I think is being missed here. An aspect of Pure Capitalism is the freedom of enterprise and choice, where competition is a regulating factor. Using monarchical examples where one corporation rules over a town is missing these freedoms and disqualifies them as accurate portrayals of Pure Capitalism.

[Will]

The end result may not be Pure Capitalism, but that doesn't mean that Pure Capitalism didn't get you there.

[Lyell]

The end result is not an example of pure capitalism because for that economic system to perpetuate, competition and choice must always exist. Just because that fecal matter I ate was fried chicken at one point doesn't mean it still qualifies as fried chicken.

[Will]

That's not a useful analogy; comparing fecal matter to company town slavery is an insult to fecal matter all over the world.  Fecal matter is an unavoidable result of the process of living; company town slavery was the totally avoidable result of mostly unmitigated capitalism.  Just because it doesn't qualify as pure capitalism itself doesn't change the fact that it was allowed to come about through that system.

[Lyell]

I agree when it comes to the rest of the world. However, in this thread corporation dictatorship is being portrayed as the end all be all unavoidable result of pure capitalism. In that respect, the analogy holds, though I do admit it was an insult to fecal matter.

[Will]

Well, I meant it was totally avoidable in the sense that we could have shifted towards a more controlled capitalism.  Your analogy still doesn't hold true, as the process that led to fecal matter - eating, for the record - is a necessary part of life.  Pure capitalism is not, therefore, we could have junked it at any point.

This is the problem with using analogies; they never get things quite right.  They only serve to paint the issue in a light more favorable to the agenda of the speaker, regardless of how accurate the comparison is or, more frequently, is not.