Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Genivaria]

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.

Private healthcare has proven to be ineffective at providing people with healthcare.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

Because healthcare is damn expensive.

[Nord Amour]

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

Private healthcare has proven to be ineffective at providing people with healthcare.

My point stands. There is no inherent division between these options. Placing everything on a scale of "left and right" is a false dichotomy that completely fails to acknowledge a range of political beliefs.

[The New Sea Territory]

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

Private healthcare has proven to be ineffective at providing people with healthcare.

State-regulated, pseudo-monopolist, corporatocratic private healthcare, that is.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

yeah thats exactly what i was saying. i like universal healthcare but not free universal healthcare.

[Sociobiology]

Private healthcare has proven to be ineffective at providing people with healthcare.

State-regulated, pseudo-monopolist, corporatocratic private healthcare, that is.

no the other kind too, it was just much much worse before state-regulation, at least with the regulation it was against the law for them to throw you out of the hospital for being too poor, or for you to claim to be a doctor when you were not.

[Sociobiology]

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

than a corporate monopoly, sure, I least I get a say in the state.

[Imperializt Russia]

The problem is that the free (free, as in unregulated libertarian wet dream bullshit - or hell, even what the US actually has) market doesn't seem to realise that poverty is a bad thing.
It further does not realise that being unable to afford healthcare and food at the same time is a bad thing.

I believes that if you cannot afford healthcare, this is your fault, when market forces have been shaping an American where slowly low-income individuals are being priced out of life, and has suddenly become surprised that people don't like having less money, in real terms, than they did a half century ago when MLK was still alive.

There's nothing wrong with having private healthcare. As long as the state provides a standard of universal healthcare.

[Sociobiology]

technically I had probably ....8-10 choices on my ballot in '12. only the 2 major parties had any chance of winning so it was wise to ignore the rest. they are mostly nutz anyway.

In the european system anyone can win!Mostly if they get voted in.

thats because many other have a point or rank systems, not a single vote. the single vote system really does make only binary conditions stable.

[Norstal]

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.


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

yeah thats exactly what i was saying. i like universal healthcare but not free universal healthcare.

I don't think there's ever such a thing as a completely free national healthcare service. And I don't mean that it's not free because it's being paid by taxes. There's always co-payment, unless you receive healthcare from a UN refugee camp or something.

[Imperializt Russia]

yeah thats exactly what i was saying. i like universal healthcare but not free universal healthcare.

I don't think there's ever such a thing as a completely free national healthcare service. And I don't mean that it's not free because it's being paid by taxes. There's always co-payment, unless you receive healthcare from a UN refugee camp or something.

Co-payment is not required in many services of the NHS. There are charges on things such as prescriptions.

[Galloism]

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

than a corporate monopoly, sure, I least I get a say in the state.

We could always make it so that, if a corporation exceeds 50% of the market share in a given field/area (including constructive ownership rules) that the corporation board is elected by general public vote instead of shareholder vote.

[Imperializt Russia]

than a corporate monopoly, sure, I least I get a say in the state.

We could always make it so that, if a corporation exceeds 50% of the market share in a given field/area (including constructive ownership rules) that the corporation board is elected by general public vote instead of shareholder vote.

It's a very short step to then just nationalise it. Why not do it then anyway? This kind of fundamentally breaks how corporations are supposed to work.

[Galloism]

We could always make it so that, if a corporation exceeds 50% of the market share in a given field/area (including constructive ownership rules) that the corporation board is elected by general public vote instead of shareholder vote.

It's a very short step to then just nationalise it. Why not do it then anyway? This kind of fundamentally breaks how corporations are supposed to work.

You're confusing a notion I found humorous with reality.

Might want to get your humor detection matrix recalibrated.

[The Nihilistic view]

The difference is in theory the public system provides adequate care for everyone whilst a private system provides excellent healthcare but means large groups of people are on their own regarding their health. The two can work quite well together in practice however, I think the UK does it quite well. A generally a good level of standard care for everyone but also a usually top notch level of care for those who can and choose to pay.

[Magna Libero]

They can, absolutely. I prefer if healthcare could be private/voluntary.

Alternatively, healthcare could be subsidized in the form of vouchers, which is not as bad public healthcare and mimics closer to the demand of healthcare in a market.

[Distruzionopolis]

Do you mean to ask "why can't free markets provide affordable healthcare?"

[Tekania]

They obviously can with competition and a wider array of customer choice. If we look at Hong Kong or Singapore, both of which have an unregulated healthcare private sector,

So, you start your post off with a boldfaced lie? Sure they have private sector healthcare...... it is far from unregulated though.

[Mavorpen]

They obviously can with competition and a wider array of customer choice. If we look at Hong Kong or Singapore, both of which have an unregulated healthcare private sector,

So, you start your post off with a boldfaced lie? Sure they have private sector healthcare...... it is far from unregulated though.

I've noticed this trend in a lot of libertarian arguments. They seem to go to random libertarian websites where they tout how "ECONOMICALLY FREE!" certain countries or city states are, then come here and regurgitate that despite the fact that these countries are, in fact, successful because their government have made smart regulations and investments and not in spite of it.

[Imperializt Russia]

So, you start your post off with a boldfaced lie? Sure they have private sector healthcare...... it is far from unregulated though.

I've noticed this trend in a lot of libertarian arguments. They seem to go to random libertarian websites where they tout how "ECONOMICALLY FREE!" certain countries or city states are, then come here and regurgitate that despite the fact that these countries are, in fact, successful because their government have made smart regulations and investments and not in spite of it.

It's no different to listening to creationists copy and paste from Answers in Genesis.

[Martean]

A single person not having healthcare can harm the health of the rest of the people, so healthcare should be menatory

And, state-owned healthcare systems have prooved to be more efficient (for example, in many EU countries healthcare it's public and we spend much less on average than the Americans, and generally live longer and better)

[Tekania]

I've noticed this trend in a lot of libertarian arguments. They seem to go to random libertarian websites where they tout how "ECONOMICALLY FREE!" certain countries or city states are, then come here and regurgitate that despite the fact that these countries are, in fact, successful because their government have made smart regulations and investments and not in spite of it.

It's no different to listening to creationists copy and paste from Answers in Genesis.

It's pretty standard fair from any hardline non-adapting ideology.

[Blasted Craigs]

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.

The "bias" as you put it, stems from over a century of healthcare failing to meet the needs of the population with the exception of those that can afford it, i.e., the well to do.
So let me ask, how long until conservatives can admit free market healthcare is a failed concept?

Free market deals with the bottom line. The inherent flaw with the free market with no oversight being the sole provider of healthcare as conservatives would like is as a for profit business, it puts the shareholders concerns first and foremost, over everything else. This is why so many people go with the cheaper, less costly healthcare that ends up degrading their life or killing them. Or they refuse to pay the price, choosing to die so that they do not financially ruin their family.

Can you see the problem with that fact?
People choose to die instead of financially ruining their family.

This is compounded with how insurance companies will attempt to drop coverage using any loophole they can find when a person becomes terminally or chronically ill. This used to mean one was denied coverage once dropped (due to it being a pre existing disease) but now due to ACA one can keep coverage once dropped but one loses the cheaper rates and instead is offered astronomical rates.

In a free market, the providers of healthcare must make money. The hospitals are not the providers of healthcare, as common sense would dictate. The true providers are the insurance companies, try to get a doctor visit without coverage. See how many doctors will see you. Although you can go to the ER to stabilize, the ER will not necessarily cure, such as a person with cancer. Not to mention the astronomical bill if you are not insured. No, the only people that receive life saving medical care, not just stabilizing care, are the wealthier parts of society, the ones that can afford to fight the insurance companies when they get sick, instead of losing their coverage.

Let me give you a little scenario I lived through. I at one time paid for short and long term care insurance. Was pricey, but worth the price as I worked a job in the security field. I later was hurt so that I could not work. After figuratively jumping through multiple hoops, and my job offering me a check if I voluntarily quit (thus losing the LTC insurance which I refused forcing them to fire me) I finally got the coverage I paid for, which was 40% of my salary per month, lasting up to 5 years if needed. It was a very expensive policy, about $70 a month.

I received coverage lasting seven months. I then received a letter that I would be required to get an alternate doctor to state I was unfit to work, and I received that letter with five days to get seen by a new doctor, get him to sign and fill out the forms, and get them to the company. An ER visit would not cut it. I couldn't get an appointment in such a short time, and thus they stopped paying.


This type of screw you tactic that insurance companies commit to paying customers that suddenly become a liability is so common it should be a crime. Insurance companies should be labeled as false advertisement in my opinion.


So again, how many years of a failed product are needed before conservatives admit it does not work as advertised? To quote the OP, I sense some bias at work here.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Why can't those arguments be applied to other products? Other products have similar problems as healthcare but the free market still manages to work its magic.

If you mean it's cheap, inefficient, profit-driven magic, then yes it does.

However, it's not disputable. The free market fails at ensuring that everyone can get healthcare, so the state must intervene.

A market economy is the most efficient economy we have. It can be cheap and high end, efficient, and is more or less self regulating.

[Pandeeria]

If you mean it's cheap, inefficient, profit-driven magic, then yes it does.

However, it's not disputable. The free market fails at ensuring that everyone can get healthcare, so the state must intervene.

A market economy is the most efficient economy we have. It can be cheap and high end, efficient, and is more or less self regulating.

If being inefficient means more money, then the industry will adapt accordingly and be inefficient, as in the case of healthcare. The people that believe the in the free market fairy make the assumption that effiency = cash, when the opposite can be quite true as well.

Regardless, a national and free healthcare service should be provided by the State. The State should also try to not be so damn dependent on something unstable and radically changing like the Private Sector.