Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Genivaria]

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?

Not sure what brought that question, regulations seem to suffice.

[Communal Ecotopia]

its crazy to treat people this way. you pay taxes so that people in other states can get the deal they are denying you.

See you should have with a Canadian universal healthcare system and banned private hospitals.

Canada most definitely has private hospitals: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/busines ... in-canada/

[Communal Ecotopia]

Universal healthcare under the free market model is impossible; charity is a necessity under that model, and I do not trust the fluctuations of personal altruism.

Yes!! This, so very much!!

[Atlanticatia]

I just don't know why people fight to maintain a system where a quite common result from when someone seeks necessary medical treatment is "Sorry, you've been denied." Or a few years ago- "Sorry, you have a preexisting condition."

[Othelos]

I just don't know why people fight to maintain a system where a quite common result from when someone seeks necessary medical treatment is "Sorry, you've been denied." Or a few years ago- "Sorry, you have a preexisting condition."

because it costs them less money in the short term or "socialism"

[The Vekta-Helghast Empire]

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 live in the UK where this is actually a thing - I can get my free, public treatment on the NHS or use my private GP

[Atlanticatia]

I just don't know why people fight to maintain a system where a quite common result from when someone seeks necessary medical treatment is "Sorry, you've been denied." Or a few years ago- "Sorry, you have a preexisting condition."

because it costs them less money in the short term or "socialism"

the pseudo-libertarians who would rather suffer in an extremely inefficient private sector rather than allowing for the public provision of public goods or "SOCIALIZM!!!!!" are just laughable at this point

It's not like we have to ban private health insurance in a single payer system. People are perfectly welcome to purchase private insurance in most public systems if they want to.

[Paixao]

Because it's wrong if your own government is willing to let you die of a curable disease. Food definitely and shelter also have strong arguments, but these are generally encompassed in minimum wages (where applicable).

It's not wrong of it to neglect providing you with an iPod, because you can live without an iPod perfectly confortably.

[Kanaria]

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, but they will then act as we all know the economy and state act, like psychopaths, and cut off the expenses...thus leaving many people without the money to pay for proper care dying. It may even allow all sorts of quackery if it's profitable.

[Othelos]

because it costs them less money in the short term or "socialism"

the pseudo-libertarians who would rather suffer in an extremely inefficient private sector rather than allowing for the public provision of public goods or "SOCIALIZM!!!!!" are just laughable at this point

It's not like we have to ban private health insurance in a single payer system. People are perfectly welcome to purchase private insurance in most public systems if they want to.

yeah, but they don't want to pay the extra taxes for a universal system.

[Paixao]

the pseudo-libertarians who would rather suffer in an extremely inefficient private sector rather than allowing for the public provision of public goods or "SOCIALIZM!!!!!" are just laughable at this point

It's not like we have to ban private health insurance in a single payer system. People are perfectly welcome to purchase private insurance in most public systems if they want to.

And many wealthy enough to do so, do.

Private is often great for the more minor things (toothache, plastic surgery, minor aches and pains - things that are unpleasant but ultimately won't kill you). When it comes to Cancer though, I want the well-researched, well-funded and (by now, in my country) incredibly experienced state-funded healthcare professionals at a hospital specifically for researching and treating cancer and other immune related diseases.

[Kanaria]

So should we collectivize farms?

Not sure what brought that question, regulations seem to suffice.

Sufficing enough to turn Lake Erie into a toxic poison vat.

[Death Metal]

The answer is; they can, just consistently inferior healthcare.

Of every country with a better WHO healthcare ranking, all but one have a public option; that one uses a subsidized system where everyone still has insurance. The majority of these also have private supplementals.

The fact that these mixed programs not only exist but are thriving also shows that the dichotomy of "state insurance or market insurance" is false.

The fact is, the myth of pure market-based insurance being in any way superior only exists in the minds of lobbyists. The same lobbyists that kept us from having a mixed model in the first place when medicaid was originally proposed.

[Lalaki]

The answer is; they can, just consistently inferior healthcare.

Of every country with a better WHO healthcare ranking, all but one have a public option; that one uses a subsidized system where everyone still has insurance. The majority of these also have private supplementals.

The fact that these mixed programs not only exist but are thriving also shows that the dichotomy of "state insurance or market insurance" is false.

The fact is, the myth of pure market-based insurance being in any way superior only exists in the minds of lobbyists. The same lobbyists that kept us from having a mixed model in the first place when medicaid was originally proposed.

I believe the one nation you refer to (although I could be wrong) is Switzerland. I believe that the Swiss model of universal health care would be the most feasible for the United States.

[Atlanticatia]

The answer is; they can, just consistently inferior healthcare.

Of every country with a better WHO healthcare ranking, all but one have a public option; that one uses a subsidized system where everyone still has insurance. The majority of these also have private supplementals.

The fact that these mixed programs not only exist but are thriving also shows that the dichotomy of "state insurance or market insurance" is false.

The fact is, the myth of pure market-based insurance being in any way superior only exists in the minds of lobbyists. The same lobbyists that kept us from having a mixed model in the first place when medicaid was originally proposed.

I believe the one nation you refer to (although I could be wrong) is Switzerland. I believe that the Swiss model of universal health care would be the most feasible for the United States.

The biggest thing in the Swedish system is that insurance companies are required to run at a non profit, and I could never see that happening in the US.
I think single payer could actually happen, though. Vermont is instituting single payer, so if that goes well, who knows - maybe it could spread across the country.

[Death Metal]

I believe the one nation you refer to (although I could be wrong) is Switzerland. I believe that the Swiss model of universal health care would be the most feasible for the United States.

The biggest thing in the Swedish system is that insurance companies are required to run at a non profit, and I could never see that happening in the US.
I think single payer could actually happen, though. Vermont is instituting single payer, so if that goes well, who knows - maybe it could spread across the country.

I'd much prefer the mixed option to pure single payer, as mixed allows people to get better options for long-term conditions.

But the worst thing we can do is go back to market-driven healthcare, because it's been an appalling failure, and the only reason our WHO ranking has been as high as it is has been because of the educational standards of medical schools. It damn sure isn't high because of the corrupt and Kafkaesque "do anything not to pay" insurance firms that existed pre-AHCA.

[The New Sea Territory]

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.

I sense bias in your post saying that it's "more socialist".

It could be provided by the private market, but such a system that coexists with a state won't really be effective.

[Norstal]

I prefer privatized healthcare. But only I get to monopolize it. So all the healthcare is mine. See how much libertarians like it now, especially when only I get the rights to distribute the cure to the new incurable disease that I may or may not have unleashed myself.

[Ashmoria]

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

obamacare is far better than what we had before.

we aren't going to get anything better until the republicans come back from their sojourn into the land of "no"

[Cata Larga]

The healthcare market is, fundamentally, a market where choice does not exist. If you have a heart attack, or are shot, or otherwise are about to die, you go wherever the ambulance damn well takes you - read, the closest hospital. What this lack of choice causes is a lack of competition, and, without competition the hospital can be as bad or charge as much as it damn well pleases. And even if there was, somehow, an element of choice in healthcare, it would be an industry at high risk of forming a cartel, which results in poor healthcare quality at high prices across the board.

The belief that healthcare is a market like any other results either from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of healthcare, or at least emergency healthcare, or a basic misunderstanding of capitalistic economics.

[Bohemia Minor]

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?

Yep. Socialism all the way!

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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"?

idk. whatever basic health insurance includes irl , i guess. Life-threatening issues and emergencies in general will be handled truly universally (not dependent on citizenship, whether or not you paid your taxes, etc.) but the patients will have to pay for the services afterwards. It's essentially purchasing something through a loan with 0 down payment. Prices will be regulated and no interest may be perceived as far as public healthcare is concerned. Private entities can obviously do whatever they agree to.

edit: also there is emphasis put on the self-inflicted nature of the illness. the more self-inflicted it is the less "basic" it is considered. meaning that if you do stupid shit, live an unhealthy lifestyle etc. you have to pay for it yourself.

[Norstal]

What is "basic healthcare"?

idk. whatever basic health insurance includes irl , i guess. Life-threatening issues and emergencies in general will be handled truly universally (not dependent on citizenship, whether or not you paid your taxes, etc.) but the patients will have to pay for the services afterwards. It's essentially purchasing something through a loan with 0 down payment. Prices will be regulated and no interest may be perceived as far as public healthcare is concerned. Private entities can obviously do whatever they agree to.

That's universal healthcare. Go research other countries if you don't believe me. Here's the British NHS:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/888.aspx?Ca ... goryID=154

As you can see, it only covers those issues you mentioned. Most universal healthcare services don't cover unnecessary medical procedures like cosmetic plastic surgery.

edit: also there is emphasis put on the self-inflicted nature of the illness. the more self-inflicted it is the less "basic" it is considered. meaning that if you do stupid shit, live an unhealthy lifestyle etc. you have to pay for it yourself.

That's impossible to regulate unless you can quantify psychological states.

[The UK in Exile]

You've got the question backwards, it's: "if they are so much better why don't private healthcare companies want to compete with public healthcare?"

[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.

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.)

I can support them both because both are proven to be at least moderately effective. This isn't just politics, it's economics.