Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Geilinor]

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.

Is the private healthcare market responsible for the wage earning potential of consumers now?

No, which is why government involvement in healthcare is necessary.

[Death Metal]

Is the private healthcare market responsible for the wage earning potential of consumers now?

No, which is why government involvement in healthcare is necessary.

Especially as, like Chalceon noted, under the pre-AHCA system those who require emergency care and cannot pay... their burdens were shifted to those who were insured. Thus artificially inflating cost of care, making it so less people can afford insurance... and even Ray Charles can see the snowball effect that comes of this.

When medicaid was first created, lobbyism kept it limited, under the guise of a trial period that, due to further lobbying, has yet to actually come.

The thing is, we don't need a trial period anymore. We know the old system is inferior, both in quality and costs. The only thing that it has over the mixed-market and single-payer systems developed in other nations is profit margins. Conveniently, the people who enjoy these profit margins... are the lobbyists who continue to forcefeed snake oil down our throats.

Because guess what? A mixed market would keep the companies wealthy and profitable... possibly even more profitable. But the lobbyists would have less power and influence, and smaller paychecks because of this, and they can't have that.

[Maurepas]

Well, I'm a pretty big believer in the Free Market. I've often said I'm most at home with the Bourbon Democrats if I was to describe myself politically.

But even having said that I think I do have to draw my line at Healthcare. Life, Liberty, and Property are the three things Government is meant to protect, and since Life is one of those, I do feel this falls under the government's purview. And the reason for that is simply thus: The core mover of the free market is the dollar vote, and my ability to withhold my dollar from businesses I deem less worthy of them. If I have a healthcare problem though, I don't have that option. They have me by my life and I'm forced to pay any and everything that business chooses. This is not a free market scenario this is coercion. Perhaps not maliciously, but by default coercion. In my opinion, a free market can never exist in a product with this kind of relationship between customer and provider.

[Death Metal]

Well, I'm a pretty big believer in the Free Market. I've often said I'm most at home with the Bourbon Democrats if I was to describe myself politically.

But even having said that I think I do have to draw my line at Healthcare. Life, Liberty, and Property are the three things Government is meant to protect, and since Life is one of those, I do feel this falls under the government's purview. And the reason for that is simply thus: The core mover of the free market is the dollar vote, and my ability to withhold my dollar from businesses I deem less worthy of them. If I have a healthcare problem though, I don't have that option. They have me by my life and I'm forced to pay any and everything that business chooses. This is not a free market scenario this is coercion. Perhaps not maliciously, but by default coercion. In my opinion, a free market can never exist in a product with this kind of relationship between customer and provider.

I'm a tad to the left of you economically on the market (that is, I see the government as a referee of competition and defender of consumer rights, but at the same time acknowledge that there is a such a thing as over-regulation and that any beaucracy involved should be as efficient as possible), but I pretty much agree.

If it was an optional thing, then (regulated) market-driven healthcare would be acceptable and would be less costly than it is today and thus many of the problems associated with the market-driven model as it is simply wouldn't exist.

But, and this is the part that some people refuse to understand, even if you've never been sick before doesn't mean you'll never be, or that you won't be hit by a car one day. "Shit happens" is the point of having insurance after all. And unlike most insurance markets, your not having it has the potential of economically affecting others, just like not having auto insurance does. That is why most US states have an auto insurance mandate, and that is why a market-driven approach to healthcare fails. And healthcare is even more of a burden than auto insurance (because unlike auto insurance, other people will have to pay while you don't, and you get healthy; in an auto problem, you pay most of the social burden yourself, but enough of it falls on the others to justify a mandate), so a mere mandate fails to fix the situation.

[Liberaxia]

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?

How dumb does one need to be to make that jump?

[Freiheit Reich]

They can but not if there is too much govt. regulation.

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling and foreign doctors from nations like Mexico and the Philippines. These clinics could perform basic services like fixing broken legs or treating common ailments like fevers. They should be exempt from lawsuits as well (so they don't need to carry expensive insurance).

The free market would also allow imports of drugs from foreign nations. Drugs in the USA are overpriced thanks to heavy regulations. Some regulation is fine but it could be reduced.

My ideas would allow the poor to get cheaper health care for basic issues that is only slightly lower in quality than the normal health clinics. For more complex procedures like heart transplants, they should go abroad.

[Gauthier]

They can but not if there is too much govt. regulation.

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling and foreign doctors from nations like Mexico and the Philippines. These clinics could perform basic services like fixing broken legs or treating common ailments like fevers. They should be exempt from lawsuits as well (so they don't need to carry expensive insurance).

"If all they can afford are quacks, too fucking bad. They should have made more money in the first place."

The free market would also allow imports of drugs from foreign nations. Drugs in the USA are overpriced thanks to heavy regulations. Some regulation is fine but it could be reduced.

"If all they can afford are questionable drugs with little to no quality control, too fucking bad. They should have made more money in the first place."

My ideas would allow the poor to get cheaper health care for basic issues that is only slightly lower in quality than the normal health clinics. For more complex procedures like heart transplants, they should go abroad.

"If they can't afford a complex procedure, they should go abroad. If they can't afford a trip abroad, too fucking bad. They should have made more money in the first place."

[Death Metal]

They can but not if there is too much govt. regulation.

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling and foreign doctors from nations like Mexico and the Philippines. These clinics could perform basic services like fixing broken legs or treating common ailments like fevers. They should be exempt from lawsuits as well (so they don't need to carry expensive insurance).

"If all they can afford are quacks, too fucking bad. They should have made more money in the first place."

The free market would also allow imports of drugs from foreign nations. Drugs in the USA are overpriced thanks to heavy regulations. Some regulation is fine but it could be reduced.

"If all they can afford are questionable drugs with little to no quality control, too fucking bad. They should have made more money in the first place."

My ideas would allow the poor to get cheaper health care for basic issues that is only slightly lower in quality than the normal health clinics. For more complex procedures like heart transplants, they should go abroad.

"If they can't afford a complex procedure, they should go abroad. If they can't afford a trip abroad, too fucking bad. They should have made more money in the first place."

Seriously. If we go with such hilariously awful "free" market ideas, we'll end up with doctors that are about as competent as this guy.

[Lalaki]

I really hope that we can get past this stigma of "socialized medicine" by the end of the decade.

Any maybe, just maybe, can we expand and reform the current health care law to be truly universal in nature.

Moderate Republicans and all Democrats need to unite.

[Immoren]

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling

I don't think interns are capable of running clinic alone.

[Ashmoria]

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling

I don't think interns are capable of running clinic alone.

well its not 2-3 years of basic schooling but physician's assistants and nurse practitioners are already doing the day to day easy medical stuff involved in family practice. the MD is becoming more and more a supervisor, consultant and expert practitioner.

[Atlanticatia]

I really hope that we can get past this stigma of "socialized medicine" by the end of the decade.

Any maybe, just maybe, can we expand and reform the current health care law to be truly universal in nature.

Moderate Republicans and all Democrats need to unite.

I doubt that will happen because there are barely any federal "moderate" Republicans left and most of the Republican party is beholden to the Tea Party or wealthy corporate donors (aka health insurance corporations). The Democrats aren't 100% immune to this either, but atleast they act generally with the public interest in mind. (Although, the ACA more than tripled some health insurance corp share prices. I'm not saying the ACA was a bad thing but there's definitely a fusion of corporations and govt in both parties, however it's far more widespread and dangerous in the GOP.)

We have to change how people think about public services. The right wing talking points make single payer health care seem like a Marxist takeover where people will be "addicted to the crack cocaine of dependency on more government health care". (In Michele Bachmann's own words!) We need to get people over this pseudo-libertarianism of voting in their own worst interest, and we need to get Americans to realise that the private sector can't do everything 100% efficiently. Americans need to learn to accept and embrace the welfare state.

[Chestaan]

They can but not if there is too much govt. regulation.

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling and foreign doctors from nations like Mexico and the Philippines. These clinics could perform basic services like fixing broken legs or treating common ailments like fevers. They should be exempt from lawsuits as well (so they don't need to carry expensive insurance).

The free market would also allow imports of drugs from foreign nations. Drugs in the USA are overpriced thanks to heavy regulations. Some regulation is fine but it could be reduced.

My ideas would allow the poor to get cheaper health care for basic issues that is only slightly lower in quality than the normal health clinics. For more complex procedures like heart transplants, they should go abroad.

Might as well have no healthcare if that's the case.

[Atlanticatia]

They can but not if there is too much govt. regulation.

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling and foreign doctors from nations like Mexico and the Philippines. These clinics could perform basic services like fixing broken legs or treating common ailments like fevers. They should be exempt from lawsuits as well (so they don't need to carry expensive insurance).

The free market would also allow imports of drugs from foreign nations. Drugs in the USA are overpriced thanks to heavy regulations. Some regulation is fine but it could be reduced.

My ideas would allow the poor to get cheaper health care for basic issues that is only slightly lower in quality than the normal health clinics. For more complex procedures like heart transplants, they should go abroad.

Why should someone have to receive treatment from an under-qualified doctor based on their ability to pay? If someone has a broken leg, is there leg any less broken if they're poor?

[Freiheit Reich]

They can but not if there is too much govt. regulation.

Imagine cheaper healthcare clinics for the poor with doctors that receive a basic 2-3 year schooling and foreign doctors from nations like Mexico and the Philippines. These clinics could perform basic services like fixing broken legs or treating common ailments like fevers. They should be exempt from lawsuits as well (so they don't need to carry expensive insurance).

The free market would also allow imports of drugs from foreign nations. Drugs in the USA are overpriced thanks to heavy regulations. Some regulation is fine but it could be reduced.

My ideas would allow the poor to get cheaper health care for basic issues that is only slightly lower in quality than the normal health clinics. For more complex procedures like heart transplants, they should go abroad.

Why should someone have to receive treatment from an under-qualified doctor based on their ability to pay? If someone has a broken leg, is there leg any less broken if they're poor?

A doctor with 2 years of training can do more than you think, especially when it comes to basic procedures. What kind of training did most doctors have in 1800?

Yes, people lived shorter lives then. However, this was due to many factors besides doctors without 8 years of training.

[Atlanticatia]

Why should someone have to receive treatment from an under-qualified doctor based on their ability to pay? If someone has a broken leg, is there leg any less broken if they're poor?

A doctor with 2 years of training can do more than you think, especially when it comes to basic procedures. What kind of training did most doctors have in 1800?

Yes, people lived shorter lives then. However, this was due to many factors besides doctors without 8 years of training.

I'm not saying that the doctor would be terrible, but why should someone have to visit an under-qualified doctor because of their ability to pay?

And medicine has obviously progressed alot since the 18th/19th century..

[Death Metal]

A doctor with 2 years of training can do more than you think, especially when it comes to basic procedures. What kind of training did most doctors have in 1800?

Yes, people lived shorter lives then. However, this was due to many factors besides doctors without 8 years of training.

I'm not saying that the doctor would be terrible, but why should someone have to visit an under-qualified doctor because of their ability to pay?

And medicine has obviously progressed alot since the 18th/19th century..

Don't be silly.

Everyone knows that if your leg is broken, you amputate it.
If you're anemic, you cover yourself in leeches.
If you get a cold, you drink some Dr. Flimflams Miracle Tonic (tm)
If you get pneumonia, you start writing your will.

This is what we did in the olden days, and that's what we should do now!

[Of Eastern siberia]

The market economy model doesnt work on healthcare,and if it did,the poor will all die.

[Distruzionopolis]

Is the private healthcare market responsible for the wage earning potential of consumers now?

No, which is why government involvement in healthcare is necessary.

Precisely. Government involvement is necessary.

[Snurgonia]

First, create a free market somewhere. Then we'll see if it can provide healthcare, or anything else for that matter.

btw do a little research on outcomes and costs before boosting for "the American way," especially in healthcare.

It may cost more but at least we don't have those terrible Canadian wait times. It's like saying that we should ban three-star Michelin restaurants because they are more expensive than McDonalds.

Strawman argument.

It is completely impossible for health insurance to have a market as free as that in, say, restaurant food: I can choose where I eat without signing a long-term contract, and I can be reasonably assured that the food I get at a Michelin three-star restaurant is better than that at McDonald's. I cannot make that sort of comparison with health insurance or health care providers.

And, incidentally, in some specialties the US wait times are very long, verging on forever, especially in the child and adolescent mental health care. Most have full patient workloads. Also, ask any practicing physician about the joys of dealing with insurance companies. My brother-in-law was in a solo practice for a while. He had three full time staff members whose full-time job was to deal with insurance companies. In other areas, it was only public outcry and threat of legislation that ended such practices as 12 hour hospital stays for vaginal deliveries and out-patient mastectomies. Insurance companies still interfere far too much in medical practice, probably more than does most of the industrialized world's universal, but not nationalized, health care systems.

And a very important fact, which is frequently either misunderstood or deliberately ignored: universal health care does not mean nationalized health care. The universal health care systems of Japan, Germany, Sweden, and most of the other non-anglophone countries with universal care are not nationalized: physicians and surgeons are not government employees, hospitals are not government entities, etc. Conversely, of course, "national" does not mean "universal." The US has national health care, and has had it for over a century. We call it the "VA."

[Sociobiology]

Why should someone have to receive treatment from an under-qualified doctor based on their ability to pay? If someone has a broken leg, is there leg any less broken if they're poor?

A doctor with 2 years of training can do more than you think, especially when it comes to basic procedures. What kind of training did most doctors have in 1800?

average of ten years of apprenticeship and/or formal training.

[Death Metal]

A doctor with 2 years of training can do more than you think, especially when it comes to basic procedures. What kind of training did most doctors have in 1800?

average of ten years of apprenticeship and/or formal training.

Oof, that's a nasty burn there. Frei better put leeches on it.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

Actually I think a better system than fully subsidizing basic, cheap procedures would be to have a negative tax-style subsidy system where the more costly a service is the more heavily subsidized it is. This way people pay for the more common, cheaper stuff themselves but are aided when SHTF and they face having to pay for costly specialized shit.

[Exxosia]

Free markets can't provide healthcare because nobody is willing to let markets be totally free. There will always be thousands of tiers of government meddling twisting and deforming every aspect of an economy.

The hilarity of it is compounded by that many of the countries with the best state-run medicine also have freer economies because they realized that stopping people from earning money means you get less in taxes to fund all these things.

[Death Metal]

Free markets can't provide healthcare because nobody is willing to let markets be totally free. There will always be thousands of tiers of government meddling twisting and deforming every aspect of an economy.

The hilarity of it is compounded by that many of the countries with the best state-run medicine also have freer economies because they realized that stopping people from earning money means you get less in taxes to fund all these things.

O rly.

I'll ignore for a second that economic freedom is actually a subjective thing, and has multiple interpretations. Let's therefore use the right-capitalist metric, as you obviously do.

TOP TEN WORLD HEATH ORGANIZATION RANKED NATIONS, FROM 1-10, WITH THEIR 2011 FRASIER INSTITITUTE ECONOMIC FREEDOM INDEX
Source: Wikipedia

1 France 40
2 Italy 83[*]
3 San Marino [*]
4 Andorra [*]
5 Malta 21
6 Singapore 2
7 Spain [*]
8 Oman 46 (Tied)
9 Austria 27 (Tied)
10 Japan 33 (Tied)

*= Wikipedia only has the top 50 listed, I was able to find Italy's rank. Andorra and San Marino were not ranked at all, and Spain I could not find the listing for.

So of all the top ten nations, all of which have superior healthcare to the US. Only one, noted gilded psuedoparadise Singapore, has a higher economic freedom score than the US (which is ranked 17th). I'll be very generous and grant that San Marino is considered lightly regulated.

That gives you two out of ten. That's an F in social studies for you, kemosabe.

Given this, and that Italy which ranked 83 out of 90 has a better healthcare than Singapore, your claim has been debunked, and your correlation nonexistant.