Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Kelinfort]

Could, would. I'm seeing alot of speculation and no evidence.

This entire thread is speculation with no evidence. Besides, anyone with basic economic knowledge knows what I said is true.

Regardless, what does this have to do with healthcare? This service is hardly comparable to other private sector goods, and despite innovation in cancer treatment under the American system, it hasn't been terribly effective nor innovative.

[Omorov-Nier]

This entire thread is speculation with no evidence. Besides, anyone with basic economic knowledge knows what I said is true.

Regardless, what does this have to do with healthcare? This service is hardly comparable to other private sector goods, and despite innovation in cancer treatment under the American system, it hasn't been terribly effective nor innovative.

I was just correcting someone, the subject deviated before I arrived.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Could, would. I'm seeing alot of speculation and no evidence.

This entire thread is speculation with no evidence. Besides, anyone with basic economic knowledge knows what I said is true.

"Everybody with basic economic knowledge knows" is not a real argument unless you back it up with sources from basic economics.

[Alyakia]

one day private companies would also have need for a stealth warplane, so they'd have made one. better than the government too though. this is basic economics, let me tell you, i took econ 101 so i basically know everything. no i don't literally live in a sci-fi movie, why do you ask? what do you mean OCP is supposed to be evil?

[Fenexia]

one day private companies would also have need for a stealth warplane, so they'd have made one. better than the government too though. this is basic economics, let me tell you, i took econ 101 so i basically know everything. no i don't literally live in a sci-fi movie, why do you ask? what do you mean OCP is supposed to be evil?

Sarcasm is the dimmest form of wit.
Not that anyone in ns knows any better.
Public can be good, and so can private. Just in different things.

[Alyakia]

one day private companies would also have need for a stealth warplane, so they'd have made one. better than the government too though. this is basic economics, let me tell you, i took econ 101 so i basically know everything. no i don't literally live in a sci-fi movie, why do you ask? what do you mean OCP is supposed to be evil?

Sarcasm is the dimmest form of wit.
Not that anyone in ns knows any better.
Public can be good, and so can private. Just in different things.

it's nicer than "you don't know anything. seriously. you're like a guy that read a wikipedia article on the brain and thinks he's a hot shit brain surgeon. basic economics is a system of simple models that will be added to or near falsified by later more complex models that model the world more accurately, which is why half of what people who take basic econ say never works out in the real world. your teacher would have told you this, if he was good, if you had one. nobody will ever accept that defence, and not just because appealing to everyone knows its true is a standard boilerplate way of getting out of actually having to defend things. also a world where private companies have stealth bombers because they need them would be so insanely foreign to our current sensibilities as to be ridiclous, and it'd probably be pretty shitty if not more shitty than the present."

maybe i should have typed that instead

[Fenexia]

Bear with cause on phone and have bad reception.
The free market is good at a lot of things. So is the public sector. Balancing it just right is the best way to go. And when the fuck do private companies use stealth bomber? Wtf is this a cyberpunk cyoa?

[Alyakia]

Wtf is this a cyberpunk cyoa?

that's literally what i said but you were like "oh sarcasm is the dumbest form of wit".

Much of the primary funding comes from universities, which in turn receive funding from the goverment. Many of these algorithms were created by the government and then used in technology.

The private sector didn't just innovate these by themselves.

The funding could have come from private banks and the algorithms would have eventually appeared, if there was demand for them.

Did you actually read my post?

please look up applied research (which private funders like and make them money) and basic research (which private banks funders because there is no promise whatsoever of ever seeing a profit or result, ever)

[Fenexia]

Wtf is this a cyberpunk cyoa?

that's literally what i said but you were like "oh sarcasm is the dumbest form of wit".

Was not sarcasm, is interjection.

[New Chalcedon]

Could, would. I'm seeing alot of speculation and no evidence.

This entire thread is speculation with no evidence. Besides, anyone with basic economic knowledge knows what I said is true.

Speaking as someone with a degree in Economics, I can say that the bolded is flat-out false. You haven't made your case. At best, your argument is circular ("We know that only private companies promote innovation because we know it!") and at worst factually false ("Apple invented the iPhone").

If you want your case to be taken seriously, argue it logically. Start with a premise, provide evidence to back it up then arrive at a conclusion that builds upon it.

[Galloism]

This entire thread is speculation with no evidence. Besides, anyone with basic economic knowledge knows what I said is true.

Speaking as someone with a degree in Economics, I can say that the bolded is flat-out false. You haven't made your case. At best, your argument is circular ("We know that only private companies promote innovation because we know it!") and at worst factually false ("Apple invented the iPhone").

If you want your case to be taken seriously, argue it logically. Start with a premise, provide evidence to back it up then arrive at a conclusion that builds upon it.

You know, there's a reason I don't make economics arguments:

I don't know shit about it.

I'll always be happy to come in and point out the tax ramifications, though.

[Republic of Coldwater]

The first Stealth Airplane, the first supersonic jet, the first double decker jet (Boeing 747) were all made by guess what?

By private firms under government contract. The F-117 was built by Lockheed for the USAF; the Bell X1 was as well. The Boeing 747 was one of four designs that were submitted to the USAF in competition for the contract that would ultimately produce the Lockheed C-5A; after the contract was awarded to Lockheed, Boeing took their own design and went to market with it as a civilian carrier.

The military doesn't develop weapons, they start competitions for private sector companies for a new airplane/gun/tank or whatever. The innovation is done by private sector companies

Which hardly makes such innovation a good example of the dynamism of the free market, since such competitions involve meeting a series of design specifications set by the government. If you did that in the realm of health care, do you know what you'd have?

You'd have the Affordable Care Act, that's what (i.e., private insurance offered to the public in accordance with government specifications and [in many cases] mostly or wholly paid for with government dollars).

IOW, such examples do not advance your argument.

What is Lockheed? A Private Company, what is Boeing, a private company. I was trying to point out that the private sector, not the government is the innovator, the groups who make the most scientific advancements to argue against a government provided HealthCare system.

The Affordable Care Act is really a way to increase the patient-doctor ratio on the patient side by a large margin, resulting in lower quality care, longer wait times and potentially the overstretching of medical resources, which hurts the elderly and once again the quality of HealthCare, which is already pretty shitty.

The ACA will also hurt the paychecks of young people and people who rarely need to see a doctor. They would rather purchase cheaper Health Insurance (or none) that would only cover major things such as being hit by a car, but not minor things like a cold as they rarely get those diseases, but with the ACA, they have to purchase a costly plan that covers a lot of things that they won't use for the next few decades, resulting in less cash for young people.

The ACA also discourages businesses to expand and hire, as it forces businesses with more than 50 employees to buy Health Insurance. That has resulted small businesses to stop hiring, and that definitely doesn't help the people trying to find a job.

[Death Metal]

This entire thread is speculation with no evidence.

From the free-market supporters, yet. Plenty of evidence from the other side though.

[Sociobiology]

I like how you forget most of these innovations wouldn't be possible without government contracts.

I like how you forget that the government isn't the only one that needs these things, so they would show up eventually, without it, since there is demand for them.

there has been a demand for a cure for aging, and stroke for centuries why has a cure not been found?
maybe because demand is not enough if the basic research does not exist, but preliminary research is so speculative in nature is funding it is not likely to give an individual company a decent chance to actually be able to exploit it. so they are better off not funding it and putting the money elsewhere.

I thought you said you understood economics?

Sure. And money just appears out of nowhere.

No, it comes from loans. That's what they are there for dumbass.

government loans (the majority of such loans) are still government funding.

[Sociobiology]

By private firms under government contract. The F-117 was built by Lockheed for the USAF; the Bell X1 was as well. The Boeing 747 was one of four designs that were submitted to the USAF in competition for the contract that would ultimately produce the Lockheed C-5A; after the contract was awarded to Lockheed, Boeing took their own design and went to market with it as a civilian carrier.


Which hardly makes such innovation a good example of the dynamism of the free market, since such competitions involve meeting a series of design specifications set by the government. If you did that in the realm of health care, do you know what you'd have?

You'd have the Affordable Care Act, that's what (i.e., private insurance offered to the public in accordance with government specifications and [in many cases] mostly or wholly paid for with government dollars).

IOW, such examples do not advance your argument.

I don't think Socio posted those things...

thank you.

[Neutraligon]

By private firms under government contract. The F-117 was built by Lockheed for the USAF; the Bell X1 was as well. The Boeing 747 was one of four designs that were submitted to the USAF in competition for the contract that would ultimately produce the Lockheed C-5A; after the contract was awarded to Lockheed, Boeing took their own design and went to market with it as a civilian carrier.


Which hardly makes such innovation a good example of the dynamism of the free market, since such competitions involve meeting a series of design specifications set by the government. If you did that in the realm of health care, do you know what you'd have?

You'd have the Affordable Care Act, that's what (i.e., private insurance offered to the public in accordance with government specifications and [in many cases] mostly or wholly paid for with government dollars).

IOW, such examples do not advance your argument.

What is Lockheed? A Private Company, what is Boeing, a private company. I was trying to point out that the private sector, not the government is the innovator, the groups who make the most scientific advancements to argue against a government provided HealthCare system.

The Affordable Care Act is really a way to increase the patient-doctor ratio on the patient side by a large margin, resulting in lower quality care, longer wait times and potentially the overstretching of medical resources, which hurts the elderly and once again the quality of HealthCare, which is already pretty shitty.

The ACA will also hurt the paychecks of young people and people who rarely need to see a doctor. They would rather purchase cheaper Health Insurance (or none) that would only cover major things such as being hit by a car, but not minor things like a cold as they rarely get those diseases, but with the ACA, they have to purchase a costly plan that covers a lot of things that they won't use for the next few decades, resulting in less cash for young people.

The ACA also discourages businesses to expand and hire, as it forces businesses with more than 50 employees to buy Health Insurance. That has resulted small businesses to stop hiring, and that definitely doesn't help the people trying to find a job.

Lockheed and Boeing are indeed private companies with rather large contracts with the US government. In addition they use technology developed by public schools and government departments. In addition to that, the US government specifies what they want for both those companies to make. Again you are wrong about the government not being a basis for innovation, considering they tend to finance much of the starting research in a field. Many engineering companies are directly reliant on those contracts and grants offered by the government as the research would not be economically feasible.

The ACA is a means of allowing people to look into multiple different health insurance companies (private ones) and compare and contrast. In addition it ensures a basic standard for what must be provided by said companies. Finally it also ensures that people up to the age of 25 are covered by their parents. As far as the younger generation (those 25 to ...what age do you want to include), they can make a choice if they wish to be covered or pay the fee. As it is, if they wish to be covered they will lower the price for everyone. If they do not wish to be covered they will raise the price when issues happen. More than that most young people will fall under the many deductibles that exist, further reducing the price for them as individuals.

How does the ACA discourage hiring? Most companies of that size already have health insurance. I do not see why making them have it is a bad thing. Source that the ACA has caused small business to stop hiring.

[Tahar Joblis]

This entire thread is speculation with no evidence. Besides, anyone with basic economic knowledge knows what I said is true.

Speaking as someone with a degree in Economics, I can say that the bolded is flat-out false. You haven't made your case. At best, your argument is circular ("We know that only private companies promote innovation because we know it!") and at worst factually false ("Apple invented the iPhone").

If you want your case to be taken seriously, argue it logically. Start with a premise, provide evidence to back it up then arrive at a conclusion that builds upon it.

Speaking as someone who actually works with economists on a regular basis, I concur with New Chalcedon.

Speaking as someone familiar with history, I would actually go further and say that private companies often don't promote innovation as often as market innovations that had already been invented, and try to suppress innovations if they seem harmful to their interests (sometimes, companies will buy a patent and sit on it so nobody else can use it). Individual scientists and engineers typically come up with novel innovations; they may be working for companies, governments, universities, or just working in their basement.

[Neutraligon]

Speaking as someone with a degree in Economics, I can say that the bolded is flat-out false. You haven't made your case. At best, your argument is circular ("We know that only private companies promote innovation because we know it!") and at worst factually false ("Apple invented the iPhone").

If you want your case to be taken seriously, argue it logically. Start with a premise, provide evidence to back it up then arrive at a conclusion that builds upon it.

Speaking as someone who actually works with economists on a regular basis, I concur with New Chalcedon.

Speaking as someone familiar with history, I would actually go further and say that private companies often don't promote innovation as often as market innovations that had already been invented, and try to suppress innovations if they seem harmful to their interests (sometimes, companies will buy a patent and sit on it so nobody else can use it). Individual scientists and engineers typically come up with novel innovations; they may be working for companies, governments, universities, or just working in their basement.

This, so much this.

[Royal Hindustan]

Free markets should provide proficient healthcare but also support private healthcare.

I meant that free markets should have a proficient public healthcare system but also support people to switch to private healthcare

[Dyakovo]

By private firms under government contract. The F-117 was built by Lockheed for the USAF; the Bell X1 was as well. The Boeing 747 was one of four designs that were submitted to the USAF in competition for the contract that would ultimately produce the Lockheed C-5A; after the contract was awarded to Lockheed, Boeing took their own design and went to market with it as a civilian carrier.


Which hardly makes such innovation a good example of the dynamism of the free market, since such competitions involve meeting a series of design specifications set by the government. If you did that in the realm of health care, do you know what you'd have?

You'd have the Affordable Care Act, that's what (i.e., private insurance offered to the public in accordance with government specifications and [in many cases] mostly or wholly paid for with government dollars).

IOW, such examples do not advance your argument.

What is Lockheed? A Private Company, what is Boeing, a private company. I was trying to point out that the private sector, not the government is the innovator, the groups who make the most scientific advancements to argue against a government provided HealthCare system.

The Affordable Care Act is really a way to increase the patient-doctor ratio on the patient side by a large margin, resulting in lower quality care, longer wait times and potentially the overstretching of medical resources, which hurts the elderly and once again the quality of HealthCare, which is already pretty shitty.

The ACA will also hurt the paychecks of young people and people who rarely need to see a doctor. They would rather purchase cheaper Health Insurance (or none) that would only cover major things such as being hit by a car, but not minor things like a cold as they rarely get those diseases, but with the ACA, they have to purchase a costly plan that covers a lot of things that they won't use for the next few decades, resulting in less cash for young people.

The ACA also discourages businesses to expand and hire, as it forces businesses with more than 50 employees to buy Health Insurance. That has resulted small businesses to stop hiring, and that definitely doesn't help the people trying to find a job.

Because having employees that are healthy is bad for companies... Wait... No, it isn't.

[Atlanticatia]

The ACA also discourages businesses to expand and hire, as it forces businesses with more than 50 employees to buy Health Insurance. That has resulted small businesses to stop hiring, and that definitely doesn't help the people trying to find a job.

Fine, then remove the burden completely from employers with a single payer universal healthcare system.

[Death Metal]

I meant that free markets should have a proficient public healthcare system but also support people to switch to private healthcare

They should, but they refuse to.

Now what?

[Othelos]

The ACA also discourages businesses to expand and hire, as it forces businesses with more than 50 employees to buy Health Insurance. That has resulted small businesses to stop hiring, and that definitely doesn't help the people trying to find a job.

Fine, then remove the burden completely from employers with a single payer universal healthcare system.

no that would make too much sense.

[Republic of Coldwater]

What is Lockheed? A Private Company, what is Boeing, a private company. I was trying to point out that the private sector, not the government is the innovator, the groups who make the most scientific advancements to argue against a government provided HealthCare system.

The Affordable Care Act is really a way to increase the patient-doctor ratio on the patient side by a large margin, resulting in lower quality care, longer wait times and potentially the overstretching of medical resources, which hurts the elderly and once again the quality of HealthCare, which is already pretty shitty.

The ACA will also hurt the paychecks of young people and people who rarely need to see a doctor. They would rather purchase cheaper Health Insurance (or none) that would only cover major things such as being hit by a car, but not minor things like a cold as they rarely get those diseases, but with the ACA, they have to purchase a costly plan that covers a lot of things that they won't use for the next few decades, resulting in less cash for young people.

The ACA also discourages businesses to expand and hire, as it forces businesses with more than 50 employees to buy Health Insurance. That has resulted small businesses to stop hiring, and that definitely doesn't help the people trying to find a job.

Because having employees that are healthy is bad for companies... Wait... No, it isn't.

They aren't, but if companies are going to pay ever increasing healthcare costs for every employee, then it would discourage companies from hiring until they can somehow pay for the wages and healthcare of the employee.

[Republic of Coldwater]

What is Lockheed? A Private Company, what is Boeing, a private company. I was trying to point out that the private sector, not the government is the innovator, the groups who make the most scientific advancements to argue against a government provided HealthCare system.

The Affordable Care Act is really a way to increase the patient-doctor ratio on the patient side by a large margin, resulting in lower quality care, longer wait times and potentially the overstretching of medical resources, which hurts the elderly and once again the quality of HealthCare, which is already pretty shitty.

The ACA will also hurt the paychecks of young people and people who rarely need to see a doctor. They would rather purchase cheaper Health Insurance (or none) that would only cover major things such as being hit by a car, but not minor things like a cold as they rarely get those diseases, but with the ACA, they have to purchase a costly plan that covers a lot of things that they won't use for the next few decades, resulting in less cash for young people.

The ACA also discourages businesses to expand and hire, as it forces businesses with more than 50 employees to buy Health Insurance. That has resulted small businesses to stop hiring, and that definitely doesn't help the people trying to find a job.

Lockheed and Boeing are indeed private companies with rather large contracts with the US government. In addition they use technology developed by public schools and government departments. In addition to that, the US government specifies what they want for both those companies to make. Again you are wrong about the government not being a basis for innovation, considering they tend to finance much of the starting research in a field. Many engineering companies are directly reliant on those contracts and grants offered by the government as the research would not be economically feasible.

The ACA is a means of allowing people to look into multiple different health insurance companies (private ones) and compare and contrast. In addition it ensures a basic standard for what must be provided by said companies. Finally it also ensures that people up to the age of 25 are covered by their parents. As far as the younger generation (those 25 to ...what age do you want to include), they can make a choice if they wish to be covered or pay the fee. As it is, if they wish to be covered they will lower the price for everyone. If they do not wish to be covered they will raise the price when issues happen. More than that most young people will fall under the many deductibles that exist, further reducing the price for them as individuals.

How does the ACA discourage hiring? Most companies of that size already have health insurance. I do not see why making them have it is a bad thing. Source that the ACA has caused small business to stop hiring.

The Private Sector can also fund and help innovation, and some inventors don't need some sort of crazy contract to invent. Indeed it was the government who went after the Wright Brothers following their production of the airplane in the early 1900s, not the other way around, the lightbulb wasn't under some government contract, neither were so many technological innovations throughout history. Private Companies innovate, and while the government can fund them, it is possible for companies to acquire funding from non public sector places, as there are always companies looking for innovation or new ideas, there is always a market for new innovations as seen by Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers.

And after 25? The person is on their own, and the ACA particularly bans some cheap healthcare that they would choose to buy due to the lack of need for the hospital, or let them just not buy health insurance. Keep in mind that the cost of the Health Insurance Fee increases every single year, to deter people from not getting insured, and that is essentially forcing people to get Health Insurance (some kinds of insurance, other plans like catastrophic plans are banned), which makes a big dent in the paychecks of the young, while the wealthy and old are completely unaffected.