Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Kelinfort]

Let's just implement Japanese system and be done with it.

[Geilinor]

Let's just implement Japanese system and be done with it.

But that would be too common sense.

[Fanosolia]

Let's just implement Japanese system and be done with it.

But that would be too common sense.

Not to mention, not the American way

[Death Metal]

But that would be too common sense.

Not to mention, not the American way

How is it not? Stealing ideas from people who do things better than us is all we do. Hell, our Senate was basically a House of Lords until the 17th Amendment.

[Jocabia]

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.

Why are healthcare costs ever increasing? Hint: healthcare costs are not increasing at the same rate in countries with universal healthcare.

[Jocabia]

Seriously, are you a parody? You keep listing Singapore as a bastion of lack of regulation and it's pretty much a perfect example of the opposite. Singapore is what happens when leaders don't treat regulation like it's evil and rather uses it as it needs to be used. Our government regulations are a mess for the same reason our taxes are a mess, because we don't accept that they are necessary and they should easy to meet and clear.

And your claims about American innovation are simply false. Public universities, NASA and the military are the biggest innovators in the United States. All of them are a part of the government. But if you can evidence that US private companies are better innovators than our government or than those that come from other countries, feel free to provide evidence. I wait with bated breath.

No I am not a parody. Singapore definitely has regulations, but when overall compared to America, it has less, it even lacks a minimum wage.

Source (Economic Freedom Index): http://www.heritage.org/index/country/singapore

Who invented the iPhone: Apple

Who invented the Google Glass: Google

Who made the first few leaps forward in Personal Computers: Apple/Microsoft/IBM

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

Even now, the Private Sector is already innovating like NASA, and Public Universities (take SpaceX and Spaceship Two as examples). Private Universities also make innovations just like public universities do.

It is a fact that innovation is largely done by the common folk, and not my some centralized governmental system.

See? This is why I definitely think you must be kidding. These are pretty much the worst examples ever.

Private companies doing something explicitly requested and funded by the government doesn't make it private innovation. I'm a contractor to Johnson & Johnson. In doing so, I've implemented a system for them that they specifically requested and submitted the specs for. How is J&J not responsible for that system? Literally, the system would not exist if they hadn't requested it and promised to pay me for it, in advance. I wouldn't create it on my own. It simply would be too hard to sell without someone with a specific need.

But this has all been explained to you from several different angles. The idea that most of this technology would exist without government interference is absurd. In every example you gave, it was large governments, mostly the US, that funded the necessary innovations for those things to exist. You've not given a single example that didn't rely on government funding and research. Not one.

[Distruzio]

Not to mention, not the American way

How is it not? Stealing ideas from people who do things better than us is all we do. Hell, our Senate was basically a House of Lords until the 17th Amendment.

Now it's basically a B-movie.

[Riflemoor]

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.

Not necessarily. I'm sure this rebuttal has already been put forward, but if the private sector's product is really that much better (cheaper, better coverage, etc.) than the public sector's, people will buy the private healthcare.

As for me, I'm with Lalaki on the Swiss-style system. Universal market, private and public available. If I want private healthcare I should be able to pay more for what is ostensibly better service.

[Jocabia]

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.

Not necessarily. I'm sure this rebuttal has already been put forward, but if the private sector's product is really that much better (cheaper, better coverage, etc.) than the public sector's, people will buy the private healthcare.

As for me, I'm with Lalaki on the Swiss-style system. Universal market, private and public available. If I want private healthcare I should be able to pay more for what is ostensibly better service.

You're wrong. That's why the Post Office has driven Fed Ex out of business. Oh, wait...

[Death Metal]

How is it not? Stealing ideas from people who do things better than us is all we do. Hell, our Senate was basically a House of Lords until the 17th Amendment.

Now it's basically a B-movie.

Plan 59 to Repeal AHCA

[Riflemoor]

You're wrong. That's why the Post Office has driven Fed Ex out of business. Oh, wait...

Forgive me for disagreeing with you and for failing to see your argument. Can you do a little more explaining?

[Jocabia]

You're wrong. That's why the Post Office has driven Fed Ex out of business. Oh, wait...

Forgive me for disagreeing with you and for failing to see your argument. Can you do a little more explaining?

It was sarcasm. I was agreeing with you. The Post Office and Fed Ex peacefully coexist with little issue because properly done they can compete with one another. Both FedEx and the Post office do quite well (along with a number of other delivery services) because that's the nature of government protected competition. Contrary to popular belief, the Post Office is solvent if we'd stop taking money away from it.

[Mike the Progressive]

Not to mention, not the American way

How is it not? Stealing ideas from people who do things better than us is all we do. Hell, our Senate was basically a House of Lords until the 17th Amendment.

Not to go off topic, but I'm fairly certain there is a huge difference between indirectly electing a senator to a six year term to a hereditary position granted for life.

[Kelinfort]

How is it not? Stealing ideas from people who do things better than us is all we do. Hell, our Senate was basically a House of Lords until the 17th Amendment.

Not to go off topic, but I'm fairly certain there is a huge difference between indirectly electing a senator to a six year term to a hereditary position granted for life.

It was pretty close; the legislatures in the Deep South continued electing the same senators for almost a whole generation before passing it on to their kids or other Democratic good boys.

[Tzorsland]

How is it not? Stealing ideas from people who do things better than us is all we do. Hell, our Senate was basically a House of Lords until the 17th Amendment.

No it was not. In fact federalism (the key of which the US Senate was based on, being elected by the state legislatures) is a completely foreign concept to the United Kingdom who prefers a centralized government over a system of multiple levels. Senators basically served at the pleasure of their respective state legislators. Members of the House of Lords are appointed.

[Tzorsland]

You're wrong. That's why the Post Office has driven Fed Ex out of business. Oh, wait...

You realize that Fed Ex cannot compete with the principle revenue stream of the USPS. (Actually the principle revenue stream is junk mail, but the monopoly of the USPS is on all class of mail, especially first class.) The Internet and Electronic Mail is what killed the USPS. Package delivery was never the primary business of the USPS.

[Jocabia]

You're wrong. That's why the Post Office has driven Fed Ex out of business. Oh, wait...

You realize that Fed Ex cannot compete with the principle revenue stream of the USPS. (Actually the principle revenue stream is junk mail, but the monopoly of the USPS is on all class of mail, especially first class.) The Internet and Electronic Mail is what killed the USPS. Package delivery was never the primary business of the USPS.

The USPS is not killed in any way. It does quite well. The reason it struggles is because the Congress keeps stealing money from it.

[Tzorsland]

The USPS is not killed in any way. It does quite well. The reason it struggles is because the Congress keeps stealing money from it.

The number one profit area for the USPS is ... junk mail.

“We don’t use the ‘J‘ word.”

That’s what Tom Rizzo told me when I called and asked him the question. Rizzo’s the spokesman for the Postal Service’s Northern New England District, which serves Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. “Standard Mail or Advertising Mail is an extremely important part of our mail mix these days, since stamped mail started declining in 1998.”

How important is it? Rizzo pulled up some numbers for me. “Total mail volume First-Class in 2010 was 78.2 billion pieces,” he said, while, “Standard Mail volume, [or] Advertising Mail, was 82.5 billion pieces. That comes to 160.7 billion pieces, and that’s very close to what our volume was last year.”

So saying ad mail is, “an extremely important part of our mail mix” is something of an understatement. It’s more than half our mail–if you don’t count things like express delivery, media mail, parcel service, and some of the USPS’ more esoteric delivery options. (I unofficially call this mix “the regular mail,” because I don’t get packages, certified letters, and flat-rate boxes sent to me everyday.)

Seeing the sheer numbers for Standard vs. First-Class mail, you could be forgiven for believing that basically, Fingerhut’s all that’s keeping the Postal Service afloat.

[Jocabia]

The USPS is not killed in any way. It does quite well. The reason it struggles is because the Congress keeps stealing money from it.

The number one profit area for the USPS is ... junk mail.

“We don’t use the ‘J‘ word.”

That’s what Tom Rizzo told me when I called and asked him the question. Rizzo’s the spokesman for the Postal Service’s Northern New England District, which serves Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. “Standard Mail or Advertising Mail is an extremely important part of our mail mix these days, since stamped mail started declining in 1998.”

How important is it? Rizzo pulled up some numbers for me. “Total mail volume First-Class in 2010 was 78.2 billion pieces,” he said, while, “Standard Mail volume, [or] Advertising Mail, was 82.5 billion pieces. That comes to 160.7 billion pieces, and that’s very close to what our volume was last year.”

So saying ad mail is, “an extremely important part of our mail mix” is something of an understatement. It’s more than half our mail–if you don’t count things like express delivery, media mail, parcel service, and some of the USPS’ more esoteric delivery options. (I unofficially call this mix “the regular mail,” because I don’t get packages, certified letters, and flat-rate boxes sent to me everyday.)

Seeing the sheer numbers for Standard vs. First-Class mail, you could be forgiven for believing that basically, Fingerhut’s all that’s keeping the Postal Service afloat.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making and how that counters the idea that public and private entities can find a niche in the same business area.

[Atlanticatia]

If we were going to have the Swiss system, it'd have to have two of the following:
- a universal subsidy (rather than means-testing)
- a publicly owned health insurance company that would be competitively priced, to keep prices low and keep the market in line

..but it's infinitely easier, more efficient, and more cost effective to have single payer. Improved Medicare for all.

A system needs to have universal entitlement to publicly funded health care regardless of ability to pay. I'm not a fan of means-testing.
Means testing means programs will be relatively politically unpopular. (compare Medicare to Medicaid, or Social Security to Obamacare. Universal entitlement means people will like it and politicians won't dare go near it successfully.)

Also, means testing is just contrary to the principles of the universal welfare state. Everyone rich or poor should receive publicly funded free-at-the-point-of-use health care.

[Republic of Coldwater]

No I am not a parody. Singapore definitely has regulations, but when overall compared to America, it has less, it even lacks a minimum wage.

Source (Economic Freedom Index): http://www.heritage.org/index/country/singapore

Who invented the iPhone: Apple

Who invented the Google Glass: Google

Who made the first few leaps forward in Personal Computers: Apple/Microsoft/IBM

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

Even now, the Private Sector is already innovating like NASA, and Public Universities (take SpaceX and Spaceship Two as examples). Private Universities also make innovations just like public universities do.

It is a fact that innovation is largely done by the common folk, and not my some centralized governmental system.

See? This is why I definitely think you must be kidding. These are pretty much the worst examples ever.

Private companies doing something explicitly requested and funded by the government doesn't make it private innovation. I'm a contractor to Johnson & Johnson. In doing so, I've implemented a system for them that they specifically requested and submitted the specs for. How is J&J not responsible for that system? Literally, the system would not exist if they hadn't requested it and promised to pay me for it, in advance. I wouldn't create it on my own. It simply would be too hard to sell without someone with a specific need.

But this has all been explained to you from several different angles. The idea that most of this technology would exist without government interference is absurd. In every example you gave, it was large governments, mostly the US, that funded the necessary innovations for those things to exist. You've not given a single example that didn't rely on government funding and research. Not one.

I have later on, Nikola Tesla, the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison all made great innovations without government help or money. Many of these inventions would have been made regardless of government intervention. The Boeing 747 would've been made as more airlines request larger aircraft, supersonic aircraft would've been eventually made, take the Concorde as an example for the sake of expediency in air travel. Furthermore, there is also a thing called a nonprofit organization, and they can also help develop technology. What I am trying to say is that centralized government doesn't necessarily have to be the only way to fund the innovation (also take note that they are private sector innovators, not ones hired by the government)

[Atlanticatia]

See? This is why I definitely think you must be kidding. These are pretty much the worst examples ever.

Private companies doing something explicitly requested and funded by the government doesn't make it private innovation. I'm a contractor to Johnson & Johnson. In doing so, I've implemented a system for them that they specifically requested and submitted the specs for. How is J&J not responsible for that system? Literally, the system would not exist if they hadn't requested it and promised to pay me for it, in advance. I wouldn't create it on my own. It simply would be too hard to sell without someone with a specific need.

But this has all been explained to you from several different angles. The idea that most of this technology would exist without government interference is absurd. In every example you gave, it was large governments, mostly the US, that funded the necessary innovations for those things to exist. You've not given a single example that didn't rely on government funding and research. Not one.

I have later on, Nikola Tesla, the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison all made great innovations without government help or money. Many of these inventions would have been made regardless of government intervention. The Boeing 747 would've been made as more airlines request larger aircraft, supersonic aircraft would've been eventually made, take the Concorde as an example for the sake of expediency in air travel. Furthermore, there is also a thing called a nonprofit organization, and they can also help develop technology. What I am trying to say is that centralized government doesn't necessarily have to be the only way to fund the innovation (also take note that they are private sector innovators, not ones hired by the government)

Obviously a capitalist economy will have the majority of innovation created by the private sector. However, this is an important role for government funding and government research and development. Private and public sector research/development/innovation can coexist.

[Kravanica]

Because people assume healthcare is a right and wish to pay reduced or negligible amounts for it, regardless of market equilibrium.

Yep.

[Kravanica]

"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house." - Barack Obama

[Mavorpen]

"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house." - Barack Obama

Which is a great reason for universal healthcare and why Republican leaders should modernize.