Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Lalaki]

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

[Citation needed].

Elizabeth Warren is significantly to the left of most Congresspeople, yes. But Congress as a whole is far, far to the right of American public opinion on just about every economic issue out there - see, for instance, Social Security, which a majority of Americans want to protect by, if necessary, raising Social Security taxes:



Yet, that's the one change to Social Security that neither the Obama Administration, nor the GOP House has proposed nor even seriously discussed. The GOP instead wants to privatize Social Security (either all at once or by increments, depending on who's listening), while Obama tried to meet them halfway by putting CPI-C (aka "Grandma eats catfood") on the table.

And Social Security is just one issue on which Congress is woefully out of touch with the people and far to their right. Medicare, corporate taxation policy, trade agreements - you name it, Congresspeople may say the right words around election time, but they only ever follow through to move it further Right.

What you write applies to the House of Representatives due to gerrymandering.

[New Chalcedon]

Except, you know, they did borrow off a similar plan endorsed by the GOP in 1993....now let's see if this sounds familiar...



Only thing missing is the expansion of Medicaid. Raving mad liberals all these gentlemen were.

That's great. But does nothing to refute my points.

....Okay. What do you call it when the leaders of the same party that championed Proposal X for over a decade suddenly filibuster it in lockstep, the moment that the other party says "Sure, let's adopt Proposal X"?

That's all well and good. I know now the filibuster worked. Again, this does nothing to refute my points. You're not exactly proving how Obama's hypocrisy is the fault of the ebul Rethuglicans.

Also, I wasn't claiming that Republicans attempting to derail Obamacare was a conspiracy theory. Death Metal, in his usual fashion somehow accused me of spreading propaganda by quoting Obama.

I mocked this claim because it sounded like conspiracy theorist nonsense really.

I'm not sure if you're doing this deliberately or not - but you're missing my point.

I didn't say that the Republican Party in Congress resolved to derail Obamacare (which would have been partisan and dickish of them, but kinda, sorta almost acceptable). They resolved to derail the Obama Administration, at any cost - up to and including playing "chicken" with America's national debt in order to make the Administration look bad (as explained here more eloquently than I can, why Congress - and not the President - is responsible for debt-ceiling crises). They've hoped and prayed that America would fail, so they could blame it on Obama - and they've done their dead level best to make sure it did, by blocking anything and everything they could that the Administration proposed. Their own Presidential nominee's reaction to the tragic death of Ambassador Stevens in Libya was an unconcealed smirk, that now - now! - he could finally beat Obama over the head with something most Americans would react to on a visceral level.

[New Chalcedon]

[Citation needed].

Elizabeth Warren is significantly to the left of most Congresspeople, yes. But Congress as a whole is far, far to the right of American public opinion on just about every economic issue out there - see, for instance, Social Security, which a majority of Americans want to protect by, if necessary, raising Social Security taxes:



Yet, that's the one change to Social Security that neither the Obama Administration, nor the GOP House has proposed nor even seriously discussed. The GOP instead wants to privatize Social Security (either all at once or by increments, depending on who's listening), while Obama tried to meet them halfway by putting CPI-C (aka "Grandma eats catfood") on the table.

And Social Security is just one issue on which Congress is woefully out of touch with the people and far to their right. Medicare, corporate taxation policy, trade agreements - you name it, Congresspeople may say the right words around election time, but they only ever follow through to move it further Right.

What you write applies to the House of Representatives due to gerrymandering.

Did Democratic or Republican leaders in the Senate propose to hike Social Security taxes to pay for maintaining Social Security? If not, then you can't just blame this on the House - which the GOP was in control of, fair and square (ish - their campaigns were almost criminally misleading) from 2011 to 2013.

[Naxalistan]

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

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

She's not actually "Left". She's a liberal. Centrist to center-right in the rest of the world.

[Naxalistan]

No. Please, leftism is based around socialism and Warren accepts Capitalism. Your claim is baseless and coloured by partisan view.

I'm referring to Leftists in the US.

We don't really exist in mainstream political parties in the US. The closest would be Bernie Sanders, and he's an independent.

[New Chalcedon]

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

She's not actually "Left". She's a liberal. Centrist to center-right in the rest of the world.

Mmm.....Elizabeth Warren would be center-left in most of the rest of the world. Maybe centrist.

[Alyakia]

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

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

"Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets""

oh jesus, i can't take this. she's so far-left she's making stalin look like a koch brother.

[New Chalcedon]

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

"Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets""

oh jesus, i can't take this. she's so far-left she's making stalin look like a koch brother.

Oh yes - we all know that voting on the basis of "Why best supports the free market?" is the hallmark of the inveterate leftie, don't we?

Back to the topic: I believe that the answer to the question, "Why can't the free market provide healthcare" has been thoroughly provided, and then some. Ultimately, the free market can - but won't - provide healthcare at the socially or economically optimum level, due largely to the influence of externalities on the market.

[New Catalonia]

The OP's argument is invalid. Because the free market provides many things...to those who can afford to pay. The old, the young, the single mothers, the homeless, the jobless, the disabled - basically, society's most vulnerable - none of whom have the ability to earn a wage, none of whom would be able to pay for healthcare in the free market.

When was the last time you saw someone giving potatoes for free to the hungry because they couldn't afford it?

I once put such an argument to a capitalist and he said, "Oh! But the families of the vulnerable will look after them and pay for their healthcare." Except no. People have gone bankrupt in the US paying health bills of family members. What if you're an only child and have two aging parents to look after? Unless you're on a six figure salary, you can't afford that. Besides, our entire society is like an extended family, so we're all paying toward the care of our extended family. Yes, some will pay more, some will pay less and there will those both rich and poor who will do nothing to earn it. But humanity rises beyond income, beyond selfishness.

No, the free markets would be no good at providing health care. Capitalism and free markets are too 'efficient' to allow the vulnerable and weak to survive. When your focus is profit not people, it becomes too easy to say, "Yeah, but he can't afford it..." and turn off the machine. Life suddenly becomes a commodity to be paid for else abandoned as too costly under privatized health care.

Furthermore, I find it deeply, deeply ironic that the right-wingers who support this kind of healthcare system, are the same ones who preach about America being a Christian nation. Well, if that's the case, stop being a bunch of hypocrites and help out the neediest as Jesus Christ commanded of you (Matthew 25:40): "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." In other words, treat the poor like drains on society to blame for their own downfall and you're thinking that of Jesus, you know, your supposed Lord and Saviour.

[Aahmerica]

Thus is why I'm glad i don't pay taxes.

[Blakullar]

Free markets can provide healthcare - and, I will concede, at a better standard than public services - but not to everyone. The great majority of private enterprises, the healthcare service included, are interested in one sole goal - profit. If somebody can't afford a service, they are either bogged down with debt or are simply denied the service. The liberals are banging on about the fact that the USA has a lack of public healthcare, and therefore the poorest lose out. That's one of the reasons why the Democrats want to push Obamacare through, but the Republicans are worried that free healthcare could destroy the hospital business and drive up taxes for the individual.

[Salandriagado]

Liberals =/= Leftist, it doesn't have the same meaning in lots of countries.

Republicans are the American Right. We can all agree on this, correct?

Okay, good.

Democrats are to the left of the American Right. Therefore, they are the American Left.

This is not a difficult concept.

No, they are the left of mainstream American politics. If we're associating the desire for a more equal distribution of wealth with the left, then both the republicans and democrats are way right of the American populace at large.

[Wickedly evil people]

Every argument that can be said for socializing healthcare can be said for any other product.

Uhh, no it can't. I've got chronic but non-debilitating conditions that prevent me from purchasing health insurance from free market providers. Even if I don't choose to treat them, I'm necessarily covered in case I DO need to treat them in the future. As such, I'm far outside the normal risk pools, and insurers won't even take my calls.

If I've got cash in my account, I can buy food, cars, and other comsumer products at will. I can't buy insurance unless a government-imposed insurance pool is established. Don't tell me there's no difference or that it's simple. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

obviously that's a problem with unregulated so called free market health insurance (so called because if it was free market they'd consider ALL possible health situations and spread the rise equally), but of course unless regulated the individual insurer's can't spread risk over other provider's risk pool.

they only likely solution to costs is to nationalize the healthcare business and the healthcare insurance business in the US. the price gouging by those two service provider groups has made their continued independent existence repugnant. You try to take down gangs that provide protection services, drugs, prostitution? They're no better.

[New Catalonia]

Republicans are the American Right. We can all agree on this, correct?

Okay, good.

Democrats are to the left of the American Right. Therefore, they are the American Left.

This is not a difficult concept.

No, they are the left of mainstream American politics. If we're associating the desire for a more equal distribution of wealth with the left, then both the republicans and democrats are way right of the American populace at large.

American political spectrum =/= world political spectrum. The Democratic Party for the most part has more in common with a right-wing European party than any left-wing or even centrist party. The Republican Party, meanwhile, is far closer to the hard-right parties in Europe, such as -ironically- Putin's United Russia or Poland's Law and Justice: theocratic, nationalist and so socially conservative it's almost regressive.

[New Chalcedon]

No, they are the left of mainstream American politics. If we're associating the desire for a more equal distribution of wealth with the left, then both the republicans and democrats are way right of the American populace at large.

American political spectrum =/= world political spectrum. The Democratic Party for the most part has more in common with a right-wing European party than any left-wing or even centrist party. The Republican Party, meanwhile, is far closer to the hard-right parties in Europe, such as -ironically- Putin's United Russia or Poland's Law and Justice: theocratic, nationalist and so socially conservative it's almost regressive.

"Almost"?

I've seen various Republicans (and state-level Republican parties, and to a lesser extent the national Republican Party) openly call for undoing the last 40 years of social and economic advancements - at a minimum. I've seen some want to undo a century of it (by repealing the 17th Amendment to permit gerrymandered State legislatures to pick Senators, rather than direct election) and occasionally a century and a half (by repealing the birthright-citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment)!

They're not "almost" regressive - they are regressive.

[Kelinfort]

Thus is why I'm glad i don't pay taxes.

Yay for being selfish.

Or are you sticking to the man, John Galt?

[Distruzio]

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.

If we consider my reactionarism in American terms, then no. Not obviously. If the United States were still under a federal government structured as it was previous to the ratification of the Constitution and the Marshall Court, then I'd be a reactionary of a more Jeffersonian and contemporary Republican bent. But, since the Constitution is ratified and Marshall's , then my reactionarism is more aligned with Hamiltonian conceptions of what the Union is. Ergo, the Democrats, who uphold a view of the Union and the Constitution more in line with Hamiltonian and Marshallite views, I find the contemporary trend among the Republicans offensive.

[Salandriagado]

No, they are the left of mainstream American politics. If we're associating the desire for a more equal distribution of wealth with the left, then both the republicans and democrats are way right of the American populace at large.

American political spectrum =/= world political spectrum. The Democratic Party for the most part has more in common with a right-wing European party than any left-wing or even centrist party. The Republican Party, meanwhile, is far closer to the hard-right parties in Europe, such as -ironically- Putin's United Russia or Poland's Law and Justice: theocratic, nationalist and so socially conservative it's almost regressive.

Did you even read my post? Like, at all? Go back and try again; maybe this time you'll manage a response that's even remotely relevant to what I said.

[Republic of Coldwater]

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

If we consider my reactionarism in American terms, then no. Not obviously. If the United States were still under a federal government structured as it was previous to the ratification of the Constitution and the Marshall Court, then I'd be a reactionary of a more Jeffersonian and contemporary Republican bent. But, since the Constitution is ratified and Marshall's , then my reactionarism is more aligned with Hamiltonian conceptions of what the Union is. Ergo, the Democrats, who uphold a view of the Union and the Constitution more in line with Hamiltonian and Marshallite views, I find the contemporary trend among the Republicans offensive.

Democrats from where and when? I'm sure that a few holdout Gold Democrats (I would probably be in line with their ideology) and "Dixiecrats" (Southern Conservative Democrats, not the anti-black State Rights Democratic Party) are probably the closest you are going to get to Jeffersonian ideology.

[Distruzio]

If we consider my reactionarism in American terms, then no. Not obviously. If the United States were still under a federal government structured as it was previous to the ratification of the Constitution and the Marshall Court, then I'd be a reactionary of a more Jeffersonian and contemporary Republican bent. But, since the Constitution is ratified and Marshall's , then my reactionarism is more aligned with Hamiltonian conceptions of what the Union is. Ergo, the Democrats, who uphold a view of the Union and the Constitution more in line with Hamiltonian and Marshallite views, I find the contemporary trend among the Republicans offensive.

Democrats from where and when? I'm sure that a few holdout Gold Democrats (I would probably be in line with their ideology) and "Dixiecrats" (Southern Conservative Democrats, not the anti-black State Rights Democratic Party) are probably the closest you are going to get to Jeffersonian ideology.

I'm speaking in generalities about the contemporary parties. I don't see myself identifying with the Bourbons and their ideological whelps, the Gold Democrats. Were I alive at the turn of the 20th Century I'd have been a Republican. Right now, the parties have reversed positions. Now it is the Republican Party that turns against imperialism (nominally so) and favors laissez faire economics. The Democrats are now the Republicans of the early 20th Century.

But of course, my own political atheism prohibits me from participating in political discourse beyond NSG.

[Caltarania]

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

ffty

I'm not sure if I should point out that socializing healthcare doesn't mean socialism, or if that argument cannot apply to most other products.

Universal Healthcare is good.

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

No, no they do not. From my limited knowledge of Economics at AS Level, I can tell you why Healthcare and Education are different to other products. As Grim said, they are Public Goods to some extent. More so, they are Merit Goods. They are a type of market failure because people don't perceive the benefits of having them due of the costs involved, hence why Americans are skeptical to visit their GP whereas Europeans are not. They wouldn't be consumed enough in a true free market because of this.

Every argument that can be said for socializing healthcare can be said for any other product. We know that a command economy is bad, therefore arguments for socializing healthcare are wrong. It's that simple, and it's the truth.

But we also know that public education is something the public tends to support almost ubiquitously. So why does the public struggle to consider healthcare in the same way?

I think in Europe at least, the public does.

It's more so right-ish-wing Americans (Yeah, I am generalising a hell of a lot here but for the most part it is as accurate as a generalisation can get) that do not.

[Othelos]

Every argument that can be said for socializing healthcare can be said for any other product. We know that a command economy is bad, therefore arguments for socializing healthcare are wrong. It's that simple, and it's the truth.

But we also know that public education is something the public tends to support almost ubiquitously. So why does the public struggle to consider healthcare in the same way?

Because they don't want to pay extra in the short term for long term benefits.

[Fanosolia]

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

No, no they do not. From my limited knowledge of Economics at AS Level, I can tell you why Healthcare and Education are different to other products. As Grim said, they are Public Goods to some extent. More so, they are Merit Goods. They are a type of market failure because people don't perceive the benefits of having them due of the costs involved, hence why Americans are skeptical to visit their GP whereas Europeans are not. They wouldn't be consumed enough in a true free market because of this.

This is true, but one might argue that for education, there are multiple ways to teach someone. Not that I'm trying lessening the importance of public education, just an "explanation" for advocates of free market education.

Edit: fixed the quote

[Distruzio]

But we also know that public education is something the public tends to support almost ubiquitously. So why does the public struggle to consider healthcare in the same way?

Because they don't want to pay extra in the short term for long term benefits.

I get that a lot when I suggest life insurance and retirement planning to my clients. They shrug their shoulders as if the future is some far off place that they'll worry about when its right in front of them. *sigh*

[Death Metal]

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.

>Cowardly? Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a propaganda spreading coward. Almost forgot I was debating with Death Metal. And I wasn't strawmanning. I was taking your argument to its conclusion. The conclusion that despite being a law championed and passed by Democrats any flaws in it are somehow the fault of Republicans.
>Pretty sure I addressed it pretty well.
>Flaming? Hehe. Oh the delicious hypocrisy.
>List these significant changes and back them up with reliable and non-biased sourcing.

You are always a charmer.

Again, you're completely willfully ignoring the reality of the situation, which is that original bill had to be amended, one-hundred and sixty times by the GOP, including the adding of an individual mandate, before it could even be put into vote. Do you even know how the legislative process works? Because there are a lot of steps it goes through just before it gets turned to a vote you know.

But hey, continue to make baseless accusations, ad hominems and tu quoques, to try to sweep under the rug the fact that the burden of proof is on you that Obama was the one to come up with the individual mandate in the first place, as you know, he's not part of the congressional committees that butchered the original proposal, nor even the man who wrote it to begin with (that would be John Spratt Jr).

Instead you choose to be cute and try to dismiss any criticism of the accuracy of your claim as conspiracy theory and and hypocrisy.