it's relevant because the problem is being blamed on the free market, and as a result people think they (america) should be moving further away from the market and further toward government run health care. And the sad thing is, the more the state intervenes, the more unaffordable market insurance costs and so its a positive feedback mechanism because the balme inevitably (though wrongly) falls on the market.
Government intervention makes people think we need more government intervention.
People love to say "oh well on a free market the poor wouldn't be able to get medical treatment because of no government" etc etc, and I'm saying that on a free makret they were actually better off, and hence we should be trying to go back to america.
Yeah, I got this, but what I was asking was why (predominately in other threads, less so in this one) you're so vehemently opposed to Obama's healthcare plan when you are neither a healthcare professional nor health economist and thus only appear to have your preconceived ideas about government intervention to go on. (I'd like to note here that I'm not saying that I'm an expert in this matter either. Just stating facts.)
Assuming you're claiming the medical industry has no barriers to entry:
Are you kidding me?
-Health insurance cannot be sold across state lines. If you live in new york, you can only buy insurance from a new york insurance company, regardless of whether there is a better policy available in Pennsylvania.
This results in drastically less competion. In some states, companies have 80% market share because they only have to compete with a small number of companies (compared to hundreds nation wide on a free makret), and it is simply too hard for new companies to try and compete with the established company because of other barriers to entry.
-the american medical association has lobbied the government to pass legislation that artificially restricts the supply of doctors. This is said to be in order to "ensure quality", but this is obvious bs and its really just so that the doctors who pay into the association can make more money from less competition.
-Although not quite a "barrier" per se, but another departure from the free market is the existing public health programs which drive up the cost of health care.
[youtube]7nEmvrln21g&start=140[/youtube]
there are plenty of otehrs, and this is of course on top of all the other barriers to entry that apply to any business in the american mixed economy
You took what I said a different way to what I meant it. What I was saying was that for medical services to EVER be a free-market then it has to be competitive and with no barriers to entry. I kept both these assumptions for the sake of the argument, but mentioned in parenthesis that this kind of market doesn't exist, nor can it ever exist, simply because of the exhorbitant costs associated with most advanced medical equipment and the low supply and long lag-time on the training of new doctors.
...which is why there are a myriad of different policies available. On a free market there would be more insurance companies, and as so there is a greatly increased likelihood that there will be one that suits your needs/budget, or will be flexible enough to fit them in order to secure your business.
Even in a perfectly competitive market, there will still always be a minimum price based upon the minimum possible attainable costs for the firm. There is absolutely no garuantee (and in fact, looking at current insurance plans it seems rather unlikely) that everyone is going to be able to afford this price.
In reference to the idea of the lodges, your article states that in 1920 over one-quarter of adults were in a lodge. But what of the other 3 quarters? Given relative poverty rates at the time, it is unlikely that all of them could afford a more comprehensive coverage. And what of the non-adults? What of the elderly? This is a time before FDR introduced the aged pension, so the elderly would have been without both an income and hence a lodge memerbship. And what of children? Or the unemployed?
One-quarter of Americans were covered by a comeptitive, low-cost system. Fantastic for them, but what about the other three-quarters?
yeah, so this is nonsense. The companies aren't just going to turn their back on a huge chunk of the market because they don't as much money as other people.
health care would be incredibly cheap on a free market, and so it will be inherently be more affordable for everyone, but also naturally, there will be different levels of coverage to suit ones budget. A rich person will have all the nuts and bolts with yearly MRI scans and the works, whereas a poorer person will have coverage more for the big things, like surgery and other things that would be severely financially devastating to them. I mean sure, this may not fit in with your romantic egalitarian ideals, but some people having great coverage and some people have just okay coverage is better than everyone having okay coverage.
See above for why minimum prices that are achievable may not always still be attainable. Again, you seem to have forgotten the people who can't afford any coverage at all.
You're claiming that healthcare is too important to be left to profit, I'm saying its too important not to be left to profit.
i mean, don't you find it a little funny?
The market leads to a increase in quality and derease in price in most things, and yet when it comes to health care, apparently the opposite is true.
the obvious reason is government intervention makes things worse.
perhaps the biggest delusion going around is that the state is good for the poor.
Sure, they have developed a government dependant class, but given time to adjust, a free makret would be better for the poor.
I'm talking purely utilitarian here, nothing to do with tax being theft etc.
I'm not arguing with you on the fact that 95% or more of government intervention makes the matter worse.
What I'm saying is that just because a free-market (not that medical services can ever be completely free) lowers costs, doesn't mean that these costs are magically low enough for everyone to afford. There are still basic costs associated with healthcare and hence the insurance industry based upon it, and for such a vital-to-life service, this is unnacceptable and demands some form of intervention for humanitarian needs.
Believe it or not, we're both agreed upon the fact that thus far, nearly all of these interventions have failed. I'm just a little more optimistic about the future.
