3 ms·

> We have the capability to remove wealth from the equation of health entirely so why not? Do we? I think the world needs at least one private healthcare marke

> We have the capability to remove wealth from the equation of health entirely so why not? Do we? I think the world needs at least one private healthcare market powerhouse to drive the advancement of medicine -- right now, it's mostly the US. If you are content with the current state of medicine, then yes, we can shut off the progress valve and more equitably distribute the healthcare technology we have now. Quality of providers will likely decay over time as well, once the incentives are gone. However, even this is easier said than done. Or we can address how cheap most healthcare expenses ought to be (in terms of cost to administer / raw materials + manufacturing + R&D (much of which was done decades ago, for common medicine)), and ask why are they not? Well, the reasons are pretty blatant. We have a combination of oppressive occupational licensing (it is too difficult to become a practicing doctor -- $$$ and decades of time), FDA-imposed pharmaceutical monopolies, inability to opt-in to experimental treatment (which also means malpractice insurance is always a major expense), artificial demand via Medicare and Medicaid (which artificially pump up the prices of all things they cover, especially drugs, and because they only apply to part of the population, they distort the market even more than universal health care would), overly broad and long-lasting IP law (patents, specifically), amongst others. I think a more free healthcare system would advance faster, save lives, and be cheaper. We have one of the most government distorted healthcare economies in a world, including compared to countries with universal health care systems. As an aside, re: the cost to become a doctor via Medical school, that is part of our expensive US education system, which is expensive for similar reasons (tuition prices are highly correlated with financial aid grants and federal student loan availability). So basically, the common worldview that we need more government intervention is garbage. We just need government intervention in the right places (and nowhere else), preventing fraud and holding criminals liable.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>Do we? I think the world needs at least one private healthcare market powerhouse to drive the advancement of medicine -- right now, it's mostly the US. 1/3 of the research in the US is already publically funded, there's no reason that amount couldn't be increased and there's no reason why other governments couldn't also drive up public investment. >I think a more free healthcare system would advance faster, save lives, and be cheaper. We have one of the most government distorted healthcare economies in a world, including compared to countries with universal health care systems. But your system isn't more free. Universal healthcare is obviously the most free system. >So basically, the common worldview that we need more government intervention is garbage. We just need government intervention in the right places (and nowhere else), preventing fraud and holding criminals liable. Why would we keep twisting and twisting this market? And where does the strange confidence come from that we just have to tweak it like this and then it'll all work? We have examples of well functioning healthcare systems. They're universal.
- lend000 9y ago
  > But your system isn't more free. Universal healthcare is obviously the most free system. Lol. It is more free, as in freedom of the individual market agents to self organize and direct resources without a centralized authority. There is no 'free' lunch, by the way. > Why would we keep twisting and twisting this market? If you reread my comment, you may find that I am only suggesting we undo the twisting. > And where does the strange confidence come from that we just have to tweak it like this and then it'll all work? We have examples of well functioning healthcare systems. They're universal. As I said, the US generates most of the medicines and techniques used by the smaller countries with touted, socialized healthcare systems. And while some of them work better in small scale countries, they are far from perfect (and note how much worse they get with larger countries, like England). However, even if we all got free lunch in your socialist utopia, people still die in their seventies and their health-span is typically a fair bit shorter than that, becoming dependent on universal drugs (Medicare) for the last decade of their lives. Why not aim for the best solution? Medicine has a long way to go, and a freer market is the most powerful force to advance it.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Lol. It is more free, as in freedom of the individual market agents to self organize and direct resources without a centralized authority. There is no 'free' lunch, by the way. I know which type of free you meant. Marketized healthcare is a system where dollars become freedom-points so some already privileged people have tons of "freedom" and poor people have basically no freedom. Universal healthcare fixes that and gives us all a minimum baseline of freedom which no one can fall under. That's why it's more free. >If you reread my comment, you may find that I am only suggesting we undo the twisting. Well no... You're suggesting we twist it in a different way and totally ignoring all the reasons those laws you don't like came to exist in the first place. >As I said, the US generates most of the medicines and techniques used by the smaller countries with touted, socialized healthcare systems. And while some of them work better in small scale countries, they are far from perfect (and note how much worse they get with larger countries, like England). Yes and how much of the drugs we create are the result of publically funded research at some point in that pipeline? As well you're basically proposing a system where individuals in my country get gouged so that the rest of the world can get cool stuff for free. You argue against providing people healthcare through the Medi- programs but are find giving the whole world new drugs? Seems sorta like a welfare program to me. >However, even if we all got free lunch in your socialist utopia Universal healthcare isn't socialism and nobody thinks it's free. (Although it would be cheaper) >people still die in their seventies and their health-span is typically a fair bit shorter than that, becoming dependent on universal drugs (Medicare) for the last decade of their lives. Why not aim for the best solution? Medicine has a long way to go, and a freer market is the most powerful force to advance it. Have you looked at the healthcare stats in countries with universal healthcare programs? Now look at the US. You're just repeating blatant falsehoods. Unplug from Mises.org man.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>Do we? I think the world needs at least one private healthcare market powerhouse to drive the advancement of medicine -- right now, it's mostly the US. 1/3 of the research in the US is already publically funded, there's no reason that amount couldn't be increased and there's no reason why other governments couldn't also drive up public investment. >I think a more free healthcare system would advance faster, save lives, and be cheaper. We have one of the most government distorted healthcare economies in a world, including compared to countries with universal health care systems. But your system isn't more free. Universal healthcare is obviously the most free system. >So basically, the common worldview that we need more government intervention is garbage. We just need government intervention in the right places (and nowhere else), preventing fraud and holding criminals liable. Why would we keep twisting and twisting this market? And where does the strange confidence come from that we just have to tweak it like this and then it'll all work? We have examples of well functioning healthcare systems. They're universal.

lend000 9y ago
> But your system isn't more free. Universal healthcare is obviously the most free system. Lol. It is more free, as in freedom of the individual market agents to self organize and direct resources without a centralized authority. There is no 'free' lunch, by the way. > Why would we keep twisting and twisting this market? If you reread my comment, you may find that I am only suggesting we undo the twisting. > And where does the strange confidence come from that we just have to tweak it like this and then it'll all work? We have examples of well functioning healthcare systems. They're universal. As I said, the US generates most of the medicines and techniques used by the smaller countries with touted, socialized healthcare systems. And while some of them work better in small scale countries, they are far from perfect (and note how much worse they get with larger countries, like England). However, even if we all got free lunch in your socialist utopia, people still die in their seventies and their health-span is typically a fair bit shorter than that, becoming dependent on universal drugs (Medicare) for the last decade of their lives. Why not aim for the best solution? Medicine has a long way to go, and a freer market is the most powerful force to advance it.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Lol. It is more free, as in freedom of the individual market agents to self organize and direct resources without a centralized authority. There is no 'free' lunch, by the way. I know which type of free you meant. Marketized healthcare is a system where dollars become freedom-points so some already privileged people have tons of "freedom" and poor people have basically no freedom. Universal healthcare fixes that and gives us all a minimum baseline of freedom which no one can fall under. That's why it's more free. >If you reread my comment, you may find that I am only suggesting we undo the twisting. Well no... You're suggesting we twist it in a different way and totally ignoring all the reasons those laws you don't like came to exist in the first place. >As I said, the US generates most of the medicines and techniques used by the smaller countries with touted, socialized healthcare systems. And while some of them work better in small scale countries, they are far from perfect (and note how much worse they get with larger countries, like England). Yes and how much of the drugs we create are the result of publically funded research at some point in that pipeline? As well you're basically proposing a system where individuals in my country get gouged so that the rest of the world can get cool stuff for free. You argue against providing people healthcare through the Medi- programs but are find giving the whole world new drugs? Seems sorta like a welfare program to me. >However, even if we all got free lunch in your socialist utopia Universal healthcare isn't socialism and nobody thinks it's free. (Although it would be cheaper) >people still die in their seventies and their health-span is typically a fair bit shorter than that, becoming dependent on universal drugs (Medicare) for the last decade of their lives. Why not aim for the best solution? Medicine has a long way to go, and a freer market is the most powerful force to advance it. Have you looked at the healthcare stats in countries with universal healthcare programs? Now look at the US. You're just repeating blatant falsehoods. Unplug from Mises.org man.