Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[New Chalcedon]

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

Republicans don't play into it.

Not right now, at least.

Like it or not, the GOP is the majority in the House of Representatives, until 2022, no matter what the American people say.

They figure big in any changes to healthcare.

[Distruzio]

Republicans don't play into it.

Not right now, at least.

Like it or not, the GOP is the majority in the House of Representatives, until 2022, no matter what the American people say.

They figure big in any changes to healthcare.

Which is a major shame. They simply won't get out of the way of the country.

[Republic of Coldwater]

However a state controlled market will also have a state collapse, take state collapses taking place in China and the USSR, causing widespread hunger and economic stagnation, whilst market failures are really recessions, and from every recession, the market becomes more resilient, if there isn't some central bank artificially lowering interest rates or practicing fractional banking, the market will not fail to a point where the economy really fucks up, which happened under state control.

Who said anything about state controlled economies? Market failures are any situation where the free market leads to an outcome that is not pareto efficient. So we're talking about things like externalities such as pollution, barriers to entry which prevent competitors from entering the market amd others.

The last economic collapse was not due to governments intervening too much in the market, if anything it was because the government didn't regulate the market enough. Banks are lending too much? Increase the reserve ratio, problem solved.

I've seen a lot of people talk about fractional reserve banking as an issue, but I've never been shown what exactly the issue with it is. So if you would tell me what your gripe is with it then that would be great. Also, banks, not central banks, are the reason that fractional reserve banking is a thing.

Pollution, I don't understand how that does anything. Secondly, if there is a free market, the barrier of entry will naturally be very low, with little or no regulation, which makes it incredibly easy for people to start their own business.

The last economic collapse was due to the central bank and their artificial reduction of interest rates, which naturally results in people buying more and more houses, thinking that it would be a good investment, therefore resulting in malinvestment, and the housing bubble from 04-07. However, the lowering of interest rates had another issue, when people were rampantly buying houses, companies rushed to build more houses to meet the consumer demands, but it wasn't possible to afford all of those houses, therefore resulting in unwanted production and less spending when people were satisfied as they have all malinvested in all of those houses, and with the lack of spending, the housing sector begins to crash, therefore making loans unsustainable and resulting in mass foreclosure, all because of the central bank.

[Neutraligon]

Who said anything about state controlled economies? Market failures are any situation where the free market leads to an outcome that is not pareto efficient. So we're talking about things like externalities such as pollution, barriers to entry which prevent competitors from entering the market amd others.

The last economic collapse was not due to governments intervening too much in the market, if anything it was because the government didn't regulate the market enough. Banks are lending too much? Increase the reserve ratio, problem solved.

I've seen a lot of people talk about fractional reserve banking as an issue, but I've never been shown what exactly the issue with it is. So if you would tell me what your gripe is with it then that would be great. Also, banks, not central banks, are the reason that fractional reserve banking is a thing.

Pollution, I don't understand how that does anything. Secondly, if there is a free market, the barrier of entry will naturally be very low, with little or no regulation, which makes it incredibly easy for people to start their own business.

You are aware that existing companies have a very big interest in preventing other companies from entering the market, right?

[Chestaan]

Who said anything about state controlled economies? Market failures are any situation where the free market leads to an outcome that is not pareto efficient. So we're talking about things like externalities such as pollution, barriers to entry which prevent competitors from entering the market amd others.

The last economic collapse was not due to governments intervening too much in the market, if anything it was because the government didn't regulate the market enough. Banks are lending too much? Increase the reserve ratio, problem solved.

I've seen a lot of people talk about fractional reserve banking as an issue, but I've never been shown what exactly the issue with it is. So if you would tell me what your gripe is with it then that would be great. Also, banks, not central banks, are the reason that fractional reserve banking is a thing.

Pollution, I don't understand how that does anything. Secondly, if there is a free market, the barrier of entry will naturally be very low, with little or no regulation, which makes it incredibly easy for people to start their own business.

The last economic collapse was due to the central bank and their artificial reduction of interest rates, which naturally results in people buying more and more houses, thinking that it would be a good investment, therefore resulting in malinvestment, and the housing bubble from 04-07. However, the lowering of interest rates had another issue, when people were rampantly buying houses, companies rushed to build more houses to meet the consumer demands, but it wasn't possible to afford all of those houses, therefore resulting in unwanted production and less spending when people were satisfied as they have all malinvested in all of those houses, and with the lack of spending, the housing sector begins to crash, therefore making loans unsustainable and resulting in mass foreclosure, all because of the central bank.

Look up externalities, I'm not bothered to explain it for the eightieth time on this forum. Barriers to entry exist without government and it is plain wrong to say that they will be low without government intervention. How would the free market deal with collusion, for example?

Another theory that I have seen that I have seen no evidence to backup. Take the EU, where the ECB had higher interest rates when the economy was growing and lower rates in tough times to stimulate the economy, which is good economic practice. Again I ask what is the issue with fractional reserve banking?

[Galloism]

Pollution, I don't understand how that does anything. Secondly, if there is a free market, the barrier of entry will naturally be very low, with little or no regulation, which makes it incredibly easy for people to start their own business.

You are aware that existing companies have a very big interest in preventing other companies from entering the market, right?

But if it weren't for regulations, you could lay 100+ miles of fiberoptic cable to the nearest hub and hundreds of miles of buried/raised cables to reach the end points of service, forming your own ISP- all for just pennies.

After all, barriers to entry are extremely low with the free market fairy on your side.

[Atlanticatia]

The problem with American politics is that it's down to a far right party vs a centrist party. The progressive caucus, the actually center left social democrat faction of the Dems, will have a hard time shifting the whole party leftwards.

How is the GOP is Far Right? In the traditional sense of word Far-Right views are when people support extreme forms of racism, xenophobia, nativism, authoritarianism, nationalism and much more, and that includes supporting the abolishment of democracy and many American ideals that the Republicans (at least on paper) attempt to preserve. The GOP is really centre-right, while the Tea Party is Right Wing.

The Democrats are not centrist by any means, they have proposed expanding the welfare state, raising the minimum wage, higher taxes and more regulations. The Democrats are really centre-left, and the progressive caucus are at the heart of it.

Do some of the GOP not fit that description? (the Tea Party, not all Republicans of course, but there definitely are racist/xenophobic/authoritarian/nationalist overtones in the whole party - immigration policy, social conservative policy, jingoistic foreign/domestic policy, etc). The establishment GOP is center-right, but it's being shifted farther and farther to the right.

And on economic policy, it's pretty right wing. There are Republicans who want to do things like abolish the minimum wage, abolish every single government department, abolish Social Security, abolish Medicare, abolish Medicaid, etc. It's not just a "lower taxes and lower regulations" party, it's a far right party. It calls for things that were unthinkable 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

The Democrats aren't center-left. Sure, they're center-left in American politics - because the American political spectrum is relatively narrow. We're a generally right-leaning country.
For example, Barack Obama and David Cameron (Conservative PM of the UK) are relatively ideologically similar, with not a huge amount of difference in actual policy.

A center left party would be trying to establish a comprehensive welfare state (establishment Democrats generally just want to expand/maintain the safety net - but that's not a welfare state, that's a safety net), establish single payer healthcare(not Obamacare, which wouldn't even be on most conservative's agendas in other countries), wouldn't do Clinton-style welfare reform, etc. It's a centrist party.

The Democrats have a platform of 'social liberalism', and I think that comes first, before their economic/fiscal policy which is relatively conservative. They're a big-tent centrist party.

The Progressive caucus is truly social-democratic and center-left, though.

so I guess the correct thing to say would be "Democrats are center to center-left, while Republicans are center-right to far right". They each have their respective factions, but I'd in no way compare Democrats to, say, any of the Labour Parties in various countries, the Canadian NDP, etc, nor would I compare the Republicans to, say, the Conservatives in Canada/the UK, or the Nationals in New Zealand.

[Jocabia]

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)

Some innovations would simply have too little benefit for too long before they would be profitable. Some innovations are necessary sooner than the market can bear them.

You went from "the free market is always better" to "the free market can usually do it too if you give it enough time, probably". You just described the free market being less efficient. Thank you. You now agree with us.

[Farnhamia]

And if the GOP would have allowed a system that didn't have a mandate, we wouldn't have one.

Besides, the law is based on Mitt Romney's law, which in turn was based on the 1990s proposals by the GOP as an alternative to the Clinton system. Guess which one had a mandate and which didn't? (Hint: The GOP one). And the GOP's steadfast refusal to budge on the mandate is why the healthcare system wasn't fixed in the 50s.

Your marks:
0/10 for originality
3/10 for overall use of misleading propaganda
0/10 for contributing to the thread (it would have been 2, but you failed to advocate a mixed-market system)

That's great, but screaming "B-b-but the GOP!" isn't much of a response. I find it hilarious that when I point out Obama's pure and utter hypocrisy liberals like you spin right around and start attacking the GOP.

This law was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress so you lot really don't have much of a case.

Your marks:
0/10 for general douchebaggery
-1/10 for the whole conspiracy theorist general propaganda claim
0/10 for such uncouth debating skills

"General douchebaggery"? Really? This is how you debate? Knock it off.

[Murkwood]

It does suck, but we can debate that elsewhere. The point I'm trying to make here is that Obama spoke out against an individual mandate for healthcare. Then he ended up including one in Obamacare and somehow the liberals here are trying to blame that on Republicans.

It's the world's worst Democrat backpedal.

"The Liberals".

The Democrats are a big tent party, you know.

With the exception of radicals like Warren, they are almost all Liberals.

[Murkwood]

How is the GOP is Far Right? In the traditional sense of word Far-Right views are when people support extreme forms of racism, xenophobia, nativism, authoritarianism, nationalism and much more, and that includes supporting the abolishment of democracy and many American ideals that the Republicans (at least on paper) attempt to preserve. The GOP is really centre-right, while the Tea Party is Right Wing.

The Democrats are not centrist by any means, they have proposed expanding the welfare state, raising the minimum wage, higher taxes and more regulations. The Democrats are really centre-left, and the progressive caucus are at the heart of it.

Do some of the GOP not fit that description? (the Tea Party, not all Republicans of course, but there definitely are racist/xenophobic/authoritarian/nationalist overtones in the whole party - immigration policy, social conservative policy, jingoistic foreign/domestic policy, etc). The establishment GOP is center-right, but it's being shifted farther and farther to the right.

And on economic policy, it's pretty right wing. There are Republicans who want to do things like abolish the minimum wage, abolish every single government department, abolish Social Security, abolish Medicare, abolish Medicaid, etc. It's not just a "lower taxes and lower regulations" party, it's a far right party. It calls for things that were unthinkable 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

The Democrats aren't center-left. Sure, they're center-left in American politics - because the American political spectrum is relatively narrow. We're a generally right-leaning country.
For example, Barack Obama and David Cameron (Conservative PM of the UK) are relatively ideologically similar, with not a huge amount of difference in actual policy.

A center left party would be trying to establish a comprehensive welfare state (establishment Democrats generally just want to expand/maintain the safety net - but that's not a welfare state, that's a safety net), establish single payer healthcare(not Obamacare, which wouldn't even be on most conservative's agendas in other countries), wouldn't do Clinton-style welfare reform, etc. It's a centrist party.

The Democrats have a platform of 'social liberalism', and I think that comes first, before their economic/fiscal policy which is relatively conservative. They're a big-tent centrist party.

The Progressive caucus is truly social-democratic and center-left, though.

so I guess the correct thing to say would be "Democrats are center to center-left, while Republicans are center-right to far right". They each have their respective factions, but I'd in no way compare Democrats to, say, any of the Labour Parties in various countries, the Canadian NDP, etc, nor would I compare the Republicans to, say, the Conservatives in Canada/the UK, or the Nationals in New Zealand.

Democrats can also be far-left. Look at the Progressive Caucus. Look at Warren.

[Murkwood]

Like it or not, the GOP is the majority in the House of Representatives, until 2022, no matter what the American people say.

They figure big in any changes to healthcare.

Which is a major shame. They simply won't get out of the way of the country.

You are a reactionary. Shouldn't you like them? The GOP is more reactionary than the Dems.

[Kelinfort]

"The Liberals".

The Democrats are a big tent party, you know.

With the exception of radicals like Warren, they are almost all Liberals.

Bullshit, there are numerous conservative Democrats, in fact, the party is internationally centre right to centre left, with very few in the actual left wing of the party.

They may be Liberal to you, but Warren is a run of the mill social democratic, while the rest, excluding Sanders, are centrists.

[Kelinfort]

Do some of the GOP not fit that description? (the Tea Party, not all Republicans of course, but there definitely are racist/xenophobic/authoritarian/nationalist overtones in the whole party - immigration policy, social conservative policy, jingoistic foreign/domestic policy, etc). The establishment GOP is center-right, but it's being shifted farther and farther to the right.

And on economic policy, it's pretty right wing. There are Republicans who want to do things like abolish the minimum wage, abolish every single government department, abolish Social Security, abolish Medicare, abolish Medicaid, etc. It's not just a "lower taxes and lower regulations" party, it's a far right party. It calls for things that were unthinkable 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

The Democrats aren't center-left. Sure, they're center-left in American politics - because the American political spectrum is relatively narrow. We're a generally right-leaning country.
For example, Barack Obama and David Cameron (Conservative PM of the UK) are relatively ideologically similar, with not a huge amount of difference in actual policy.

A center left party would be trying to establish a comprehensive welfare state (establishment Democrats generally just want to expand/maintain the safety net - but that's not a welfare state, that's a safety net), establish single payer healthcare(not Obamacare, which wouldn't even be on most conservative's agendas in other countries), wouldn't do Clinton-style welfare reform, etc. It's a centrist party.

The Democrats have a platform of 'social liberalism', and I think that comes first, before their economic/fiscal policy which is relatively conservative. They're a big-tent centrist party.

The Progressive caucus is truly social-democratic and center-left, though.

so I guess the correct thing to say would be "Democrats are center to center-left, while Republicans are center-right to far right". They each have their respective factions, but I'd in no way compare Democrats to, say, any of the Labour Parties in various countries, the Canadian NDP, etc, nor would I compare the Republicans to, say, the Conservatives in Canada/the UK, or the Nationals in New Zealand.

Democrats can also be far-left. Look at the Progressive Caucus. Look at Warren.

No. You do know what far left means, right?

[Atlanticatia]

Democrats can also be far-left. Look at the Progressive Caucus. Look at Warren.

Warren is center-left.

[European Socialist Republic]

Do some of the GOP not fit that description? (the Tea Party, not all Republicans of course, but there definitely are racist/xenophobic/authoritarian/nationalist overtones in the whole party - immigration policy, social conservative policy, jingoistic foreign/domestic policy, etc). The establishment GOP is center-right, but it's being shifted farther and farther to the right.

And on economic policy, it's pretty right wing. There are Republicans who want to do things like abolish the minimum wage, abolish every single government department, abolish Social Security, abolish Medicare, abolish Medicaid, etc. It's not just a "lower taxes and lower regulations" party, it's a far right party. It calls for things that were unthinkable 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

The Democrats aren't center-left. Sure, they're center-left in American politics - because the American political spectrum is relatively narrow. We're a generally right-leaning country.
For example, Barack Obama and David Cameron (Conservative PM of the UK) are relatively ideologically similar, with not a huge amount of difference in actual policy.

A center left party would be trying to establish a comprehensive welfare state (establishment Democrats generally just want to expand/maintain the safety net - but that's not a welfare state, that's a safety net), establish single payer healthcare(not Obamacare, which wouldn't even be on most conservative's agendas in other countries), wouldn't do Clinton-style welfare reform, etc. It's a centrist party.

The Democrats have a platform of 'social liberalism', and I think that comes first, before their economic/fiscal policy which is relatively conservative. They're a big-tent centrist party.

The Progressive caucus is truly social-democratic and center-left, though.

so I guess the correct thing to say would be "Democrats are center to center-left, while Republicans are center-right to far right". They each have their respective factions, but I'd in no way compare Democrats to, say, any of the Labour Parties in various countries, the Canadian NDP, etc, nor would I compare the Republicans to, say, the Conservatives in Canada/the UK, or the Nationals in New Zealand.

Democrats can also be far-left. Look at the Progressive Caucus. Look at Warren.

Far-left? Bwahahahaha!
I wonder what your reaction to an actual far-left party would be.

[Calimera II]

It's bullshit the market cannot provide healthcare.

[Murkwood]

Democrats can also be far-left. Look at the Progressive Caucus. Look at Warren.

No. You do know what far left means, right?

In the US, she is far-left.

[Neutraligon]

No. You do know what far left means, right?

In the US, she is far-left.

That only says that the US is lopsided to the right, which is hardly news.

[Death Metal]

That's great, but screaming "B-b-but the GOP!" isn't much of a response. I find it hilarious that when I point out Obama's pure and utter hypocrisy liberals like you spin right around and start attacking the GOP.

This law was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress so you lot really don't have much of a case.

Cowardly attempt to deflect the criticism with a straw version of my response? Check.
Failure to address the point? Check.
Flaming? Check.
Ignoring the fact that despite the majority the GOP still managed to logjam and force significant changes to the AHCA? Check

Congratulations, you've proven yourself unable to defend your argument.

[Naxalistan]

No. You do know what far left means, right?

In the US, she is far-left.

Which is to say, she is slightly right of center in the rest of the OECD countries.

[Death Metal]

[
For the last time, Romneycare is different from Obamacare. Vastly different.

Did I say there were the same? No. I said the AHCA was based on the Massachusetts one and the 1990s GOP proposal, both had individual mandates.

-5/10. Not a shred of integrity or intellectual debate. Pure cowardly hit and run snipe.

Welcome to the "I'm not reading your posts anymore" club.

[Death Metal]

Also, it's a bit hard to claim "Conspiracy theory LOL" when Republicans spent the time between Election Day '08 and Inauguration Day plotting how to derail the Obama Administration. Not just "get as much of their stuff through as they could", which would have been entirely appropriate (they, too, were elected, after all), but "Make sure that the Obama Admin achieves absolutely nothing". Including stuff that they themselves championed until that time.

But IOKIYAR, so it's conspiracy theory, so sayeth the hypocritical GOP apologists.

[Kelinfort]

No. You do know what far left means, right?

In the US, she is far-left.

No. She's probably more left of center than most Americans, but far left for the US would be Sanders.

[Kelinfort]

The Japanese system is the best compromise for America. Here's why:

-Hospitals are private, but non profit
-Physicians negotiate the price of each procedure with the government for each fiscal year, cutting down on cost.
-Private insurance still exists, but it coexists with government insurance for the poor and needy; about a 70-30 split.
-Government reimburses people for 70% of all expenses.

Go take a look at the amount Japan spends per capita on healthcare versus the United States.