Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Ashmoria]

and how would that help anyone who needs healthcare?

I dont get your point. The govt is actively engaged in assuring a basic standard of living (to include healthcare) to everyone.

then you really don't oppose the idea of universal healthcare.

[Calimera II]

Stop using "liberal" as "left-wing".

[Vamtrl]

Too often I hear the arguments from liberals that healthcare is somehow different than buying potatoes or an ipod, that the free market cannot work. I think these arguments are a load of rubbish.

Information asymmetry exists in all markets, you don't know where your potatoes come from or how much pollution making them costs. There are various concentrations in various industries, many of them successfully run by the free market. If you buy a parachute and you choose wrong you still die, but the free market runs the parachute industry with success. So why not free markets?

Could it be that liberals don't want to give the American way a chance before they go around making things more socialist? I sense some bias at work here.

They can provide excellent healthcare as long as you have the money. The problem here is that people dont like the thought of poor people getting free healthcare on their dime. Much like everything Americans are a self centered lot that cannot see or care beyond their monkey sphere.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I dont get your point. The govt is actively engaged in assuring a basic standard of living (to include healthcare) to everyone.

then you really don't oppose the idea of universal healthcare.

the idea of free universal healthcare, i do , yes.

[Neutraligon]

Because it isn't an elastic system. People will pay anything to ensure they or a loved one are treated for life threatening situations, meaning that the companies can charge practically anything. More than that, it is a system that is inherently unequal when it comes to information. In order for a free market system to work, the customer must be able to make informed choices, and often customers cannot make informed choices.

[Farnhamia]

Because it isn't an elastic system. People will pay anything to ensure they or a loved one are treated for life threatening situations, meaning that the companies can charge practically anything.

It's analogous to Robert Klein's statement of the law of supply and demand apropos the oil companies: We have all the supply, we can demand whatever the hell we want. Same with the health insurance and health care industries.

[Ashmoria]

then you really don't oppose the idea of universal healthcare.

the idea of free universal healthcare, i do , yes.

then what are you proposing and if what you are proposing doesn't include universal healthcare why are you posting it here?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

the idea of free universal healthcare, i do , yes.

then what are you proposing and if what you are proposing doesn't include universal healthcare why are you posting it here?

it includes universal healthcare which isn't actually free. or, in more practical and common terms, only basic healthcare is free.

[Neutraligon]

Because it isn't an elastic system. People will pay anything to ensure they or a loved one are treated for life threatening situations, meaning that the companies can charge practically anything.

It's analogous to Robert Klein's statement of the law of supply and demand apropos the oil companies: We have all the supply, we can demand whatever the hell we want. Same with the health insurance and health care industries.

Indeed, there are just certain industries that will not function well in the free market, simply due to the nature of that system. Has anyone looked up the electrification of rural America? Runing the electrical lines out there, where there are so few customers was economically not viable as far as companies were concerned. The same things holds for delivering the mail. Remote regions are very expensive to deliver to. It took the usps and the rural electrification Act to get these services (and telephone service) to the more rural areas.

[European Socialist Republic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... _blog.html

Most countries with universal health care have shorter waiting periods than the United States. Canada happens to be an exception.

How about countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore with true, not phony free market healthcare?

Singapore? With it's government subsidies of bills and compulsory medical savings accounts?

http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/h ... ncing.html

Doesn't really sound like free market to me. Neither does Hong Kong, where 42 out of 53 hospitals are owned by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Hong_Kong

[Napkiraly]

I don't mind a public healthcare plan as long as the private healthcare sector is left alone.

Apparently that's not something anyone can accept with this all or nothing attitude.

I doubt that is possible as public healthcare will drive potential customers into the public healthcare and hurt the private healthcare sector, which will subsequently hurt the far more flexible private sector.

The UK and Germany have good private healthcare industries supplementing their public healthcare systems iirc.

[Cetacea]

Because healthcare is a public good. Someone getting treated for Ebola with taxpayer money is a net benefit to society.


The iPod is not. The potato might be, if the consumer can't afford a nutritious diet otherwise.

So should we collectivize farms?

no but every state school should have a vegetable garden/orchard. I'm currently looking at getting a public orchard planted in a local reserve

New Zealand has both a public and private healthcare system. Public Hospitals and Primary Health Organisations (GPs, Community nurses etc) are funded on a population basis with GP services subsidized per enrollment. Accident insurance is nationalised (thus removing the 'Sue me' culture) but private hospitals and private hospitals exist and can provide non-urgent and elective services, as well as private radiology and laboratory services

Both private and public hospitals are high quality although private hospitals tend to have short/no waiting list and the nurses aren't as overworked and tired...

[Atlanticatia]

At the end of the day, health care is a social responsibility. We are all entitled to it, as it is a human right, and therefore we as a society must collectively provide it.

Health care is not a commodity. If you get cancer, you should have just as much a chance as anyone else to get treatment regardless of your ability to pay. Getting health care is not a choice - it's a necessity. It'd be different if it'd be feasible for the average person to not get health care treatment. For example, it'd make no sense to provide free televisions to everyone via nationalised industry - it's not a necessity. So it's really up to how much someone can afford for the level of quality they want in their TV. But with health care, when you're sick, you're sick. Getting treatment isn't really based on wealth - everyone is going to need treatment regardless of them being rich or poor. That's why it's not a commodity, and it's nonsensical to profit off of it. That just drives up prices. If everyone needs health care, there's only so much competition, etc that can go on in a marketplace. In most countries, all citizens are equally entitled to necessary healthcare that is free at the point of use. Then, there is generally a level of private insurance above that - for example, some people may opt to purchase private insurance for more luxurious/homeopathic things like spa treatments or acupuncture, or they might use private health insurance to get elective surgery quicker. But with a single payer everyone has equal access to free, high-quality necessary health care. It's something that you have as a right of citizenship - it's not a commodity. I am fine with having a relatively unregulated private insurance market above the single payer system, for people who wish to get coverage for elective procedures, etc, but everyone should have the right to necessary health care.

[Arkolon]

Because a state monopoly is arguably a much, much better alternative *nods*

[Norstal]

then what are you proposing and if what you are proposing doesn't include universal healthcare why are you posting it here?

it includes universal healthcare which isn't actually free. or, in more practical and common terms, only basic healthcare is free.

What is "basic healthcare"?

[Conscentia]

Because my continued health shouldn't be dependent on my present wealth.

[Atlanticatia]

Because a state monopoly is arguably a much, much better alternative *nods*

exactly

[Conscentia]

Because a state monopoly is arguably a much, much better alternative *nods*

exactly

On NS, when some ends a sentence with "*nods*", it signifies sarcasm or a joke.

[Atlanticatia]

exactly

On NS, when some ends a sentence with "*nods*", it signifies sarcasm or a joke.

I knew that it was sarcasm.

But I think that it would be better than 'free-market' health care.

[Kelinfort]

Because a state monopoly is arguably a much, much better alternative *nods*

Yep, what's new? The only other alternative that looks good is Japan and the Netherlands. Both have a high amount of state interference.

[Nord Amour]

I would support either single-payer or free market solutions to the problem of healthcare, but the so called "Obamacare" needs to go.

[Coccygia]

Y'know, it ain't like "the American Way" has not been tried. It has and it doesn't work. Time to try the European Way. And healthcare is NOT like buying an iPod. Healthcare is a necessity of life, not some useless expensive trinket you don't need.

[The Scientific States]

I would support either single-payer or free market solutions to the problem of healthcare, but the so called "Obamacare" needs to go.

Single payer healthcare systems and free market solutions to healthcare are systems that are polar opposites. I fail to see how one could support both, as they're so radically different from each other. The only thing they have in common is that they both provide healthcare(one model is better at doing so, however.)

[Lalaki]

At the end of the day, health care is a social responsibility. We are all entitled to it, as it is a human right, and therefore we as a society must collectively provide it.

Health care is not a commodity. If you get cancer, you should have just as much a chance as anyone else to get treatment regardless of your ability to pay. Getting health care is not a choice - it's a necessity. It'd be different if it'd be feasible for the average person to not get health care treatment. For example, it'd make no sense to provide free televisions to everyone via nationalised industry - it's not a necessity. So it's really up to how much someone can afford for the level of quality they want in their TV. But with health care, when you're sick, you're sick. Getting treatment isn't really based on wealth - everyone is going to need treatment regardless of them being rich or poor. That's why it's not a commodity, and it's nonsensical to profit off of it. That just drives up prices. If everyone needs health care, there's only so much competition, etc that can go on in a marketplace. In most countries, all citizens are equally entitled to necessary healthcare that is free at the point of use. Then, there is generally a level of private insurance above that - for example, some people may opt to purchase private insurance for more luxurious/homeopathic things like spa treatments or acupuncture, or they might use private health insurance to get elective surgery quicker. But with a single payer everyone has equal access to free, high-quality necessary health care. It's something that you have as a right of citizenship - it's not a commodity. I am fine with having a relatively unregulated private insurance market above the single payer system, for people who wish to get coverage for elective procedures, etc, but everyone should have the right to necessary health care.

[Genivaria]

Too often I hear the arguments from liberals that healthcare is somehow different than buying potatoes or an ipod, that the free market cannot work. I think these arguments are a load of rubbish.

Information asymmetry exists in all markets, you don't know where your potatoes come from or how much pollution making them costs. There are various concentrations in various industries, many of them successfully run by the free market. If you buy a parachute and you choose wrong you still die, but the free market runs the parachute industry with success. So why not free markets?

Could it be that liberals don't want to give the American way a chance before they go around making things more socialist? I sense some bias at work here.

And many of those industries are regulated by OSHA as well as other departments to insure safety standards.
That doesn't happen automatically.