Although I am not certain, it sounds like hospitals are subject to the principle of economies of scale. Sometimes "perfect competition" is simply not the most efficient, Flint. Especially in the case when it is cost prohibitive for a new supplier to enter the market, and/or where one or a few giant firms already own the essential infrastructure (provided that infrastructure is expensive) to service the public. In such cases, the government enforces price ceilings to increase efficiency. Considering that companies want to maximize their profits, and that competition does not compel a monopoly or oligopoly to drop their prices, price ceilings force the said companies to improve their efficiency to increase their profits.

As for hospitals, I think the case for economies of scale is strongly established with the high cost of certain equipment. However, our health care system is broken and inefficient beyond repair. It needs full structural reform. Obama Care is a laughable attempt to treat the branches of the tree, but the fact is the tree is sick at the roots. It needs to be cut down.

Why not temporarily restore power to the monarchy? King Juan Carlos I can be trusted to hand over power again after a time sufficient to reorganize the state's political apparatus.

Fool,

Ok, thanks for clarifying. The part I want to point out is that I agree with the majority of your points, but I'm not convinced they defend relativism. I acknowledge that evidence can be consistent with multiple theories, and therefore one model can be equally justified as another. In fact, I am willing to take this a step further by stating there are an infinite number of theories that are consistent with every unquestioned scientific theory, and only the values of science including parsimony, coherence with related theories, and popularity narrow them to fewer possibilities.

To the contrary, I reckon they defend the falsification interpretation of science. The view lacks the dogmatism of previous scientific philosophy, and instead demands that scientific theories be falsifiable. That is, they can be tested for inconsistency with evidence. Moreover, this interpretation does not imply that other methods of gaining knowledge are incorrect, but that there are practical reasons for favoring the scientific model over others.

Although this view may seem relativistic, it is in fact more consistent with skepticism. According to skepticism, we can not verify if a theory is true or false, but that does not mean it isn't. Rather, the suspension of judgement is concluded. In a sense, the current evolution of the falsification interpretation has resulted in a marriage between skepticism and empiricism. As for relativism, skepticism would assign it a dogmatic status. Although relativism often employs skeptical arguments, it is often missed that skepticism is a double edged sword for relativism.

Relativism effectively states that truth depends on belief. Stated differently, what you believe to be true is true, and what someone else believes to be true is also true. Therefore, if you believe you can fly, then it is true you can fly.

Two,

I am not defending the truth of one religion over another. I am arguing that one branch of a religion is much less benign than other mainstream alternatives, and I disapprove of the fact that a member of a more malicious branch is occupying a very powerful religious/political office due to presidential appointment. Second, this fact provides me cause to be suspicious about Obama's own religious convictions, and less inclined to dismiss his relationship with Reverend Wright as an artifact of his confused past.

> [Render] wrote:

demogtaphivc what?? you are very very mistaken dude, are you americans able to sleep 40 peoplee in a 40m2 room???
well

chineses can doit, they are used to do it, and they have 0 problems with population,

they use thge advantange of confusion because when you see one you cannot discern if he's the one you saw yesterdsy ::/
<

In a few decades, China will have too many old people to support, and fewer young people to replace the jobs the older generation once had. Moreover, because male children are preferred, they have a gender imbalance that is only getting worse. Both are caused by the one child policy.

The one thing that concerns me is the gender imbalance. Societies with a gender imbalance resulting in too few women have resulted with a large male population with nothing better to do but stir up trouble with war and the oppression of women.

So does this mean we can welcome Alberta in to the US and get their oil yet?

Yell,

Any disrespect Obama receives is a good thing.

two,

I don't care that the top 1% owns 25% of the wealth. But I do care that the top one tenth of a percent are obscenely rich and control our government.

Zarf,

I am still not convinced.

1. Who cares if people, even if a majority, disapprove of his rule? It's not our responsibility to deploy our forces to remove unpopular dictators. It would bankrupt us.
2. Barring the entry of western journalists is irrelevant. As for his acts of terrorism in the past, that is a half-truth. The early period of his rule was characterized by an active anti-western policy that included terrorism, but he eventually learned that messing with the west is a bad idea and instead established strong business relationships with them.
3. That is also a half-truth. This case for international agreement provided by both the UN and Arab League is merely an example of minority rule from the moral high ground. Considering the half-ditched efforts by Turkey and its strict "no fly zone" interpretation, and the absentee votes by the world's major powers, I am convinced this appearance of "international agreement" is nothing short of moral coercion.
4. Of course it is. So why are we contributing to it? Let Ghadaffi crush the rebels and restore order. By aiding the rebels, we only add to the problem by emboldening the sexually frustrated, male youth in other mid-eastern states.

LOL. We have a lot worse problems on our hands than ethanol. Our government's agricultural policy is literally eroding the soil.