3 ms·

It's Capitalism applied to something that doesn't have a market, shouldn't have a market, and who's participants are unable to properly participate in it in any

It's Capitalism applied to something that doesn't have a market, shouldn't have a market, and who's participants are unable to properly participate in it in any way that resembles a market.

gohbgl 9y ago
The health sector is one of the most regulated sectors in the US. It has nothing to do with free market capitalism.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  And yet for profit entities proliferate it at every level, and the constant drumbeat of people against nationalization is for people to be "smart" consumers of healthcare, as if you can make an informed market-based decision about which provider to use while in the back of a damn ambulance.
  - a_tractor 9y ago
    >the constant drumbeat of people against nationalization is for people to be "smart" consumers of healthcare No it isn't. The people who are against nationalization believe a free market would be better, but that excessive government regulation, deeply entrenched administrative/bureaucratic bloat (middlemen) as well as unfair competition with insurance co ponzi style business models prevents an accessible free market for health care from happening. They see corruption and cronyism maintaining the status quo and see through the obvious false choice where the only available options is bankruptcy or socialism. The people against nationalization do not think that health care should cost as much as it does, and do not believe socializing the effects of a bloated, broken and corrupt system will do anything but make it worse. They are also likely to be the same people who would have to pay for it, as if they aren't already, and they are smart enough to see that the ever increasing welfare state (not to mention forced acceptance of mass immigration) will eventually eat them alive. Why would anybody accept much less desire to live in such a parasitic environment?
- gohbgl 9y ago
  > as if you can make an informed market-based decision about which provider to use while in the back of a damn ambulance. That's a pretty bad straw man argument. Of course you have to pick an insurer before the accident happens otherwise it's not insurance.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    How does the ambulance know where my insurer wants me to go? For that matter, why is it the responsibility of EMT's to, whilist driving at high speed through traffic and attempting to keep my organs in my torso, go through my insurance info and figure out which hospital I should go to and potentially risk both my and their safety with a longer trip, to respect the wishes of a corporation which barely knows I exist? How about instead, we just fix people? And figure out the rest of the BS later?
jamesblonde 9y ago
This is a good argument for why we should reject meta-narratives for how the world should work. Capitalism (and/or consumerism?) is one such narrative. Ignore or criticize data points that don't fit the meta-narrative. In that sense, Scandinavian policy is light years ahead, as it is pragmatic and have reasonably high amounts of evidence-driven policy (disclaimer, i live in Sweden).
a_tractor 9y ago
>doesn't have a market doesnt have supply and demand? scarcity of skill and resources isn't real? >shouldn't have a market So it does have a market, but shouldn't? >participants are unable to properly participate in it in any way that resembles a market Really? So I am not competing with others for a better doctor's limited time? I'm not working harder to attain more money to buy better insurance or afford better care? What are you talking about? Talk about bureaucratic bloat, regulatory overhead, regulatory capture/cronyism, the need for tort reform, or the fact that the insurance co ponzi business model dominates price negotiation and destroys any semblance of an efficient free market and you make start making sense.

It's Capitalism applied to something that doesn't have a market, shouldn't have a market, and who's participants are unable to properly participate in it in any way that resembles a market.

gohbgl 9y ago

The health sector is one of the most regulated sectors in the US. It has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

FussyZeus 9y ago
And yet for profit entities proliferate it at every level, and the constant drumbeat of people against nationalization is for people to be "smart" consumers of healthcare, as if you can make an informed market-based decision about which provider to use while in the back of a damn ambulance.
- a_tractor 9y ago
  >the constant drumbeat of people against nationalization is for people to be "smart" consumers of healthcare No it isn't. The people who are against nationalization believe a free market would be better, but that excessive government regulation, deeply entrenched administrative/bureaucratic bloat (middlemen) as well as unfair competition with insurance co ponzi style business models prevents an accessible free market for health care from happening. They see corruption and cronyism maintaining the status quo and see through the obvious false choice where the only available options is bankruptcy or socialism. The people against nationalization do not think that health care should cost as much as it does, and do not believe socializing the effects of a bloated, broken and corrupt system will do anything but make it worse. They are also likely to be the same people who would have to pay for it, as if they aren't already, and they are smart enough to see that the ever increasing welfare state (not to mention forced acceptance of mass immigration) will eventually eat them alive. Why would anybody accept much less desire to live in such a parasitic environment?
gohbgl 9y ago
> as if you can make an informed market-based decision about which provider to use while in the back of a damn ambulance. That's a pretty bad straw man argument. Of course you have to pick an insurer before the accident happens otherwise it's not insurance.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  How does the ambulance know where my insurer wants me to go? For that matter, why is it the responsibility of EMT's to, whilist driving at high speed through traffic and attempting to keep my organs in my torso, go through my insurance info and figure out which hospital I should go to and potentially risk both my and their safety with a longer trip, to respect the wishes of a corporation which barely knows I exist? How about instead, we just fix people? And figure out the rest of the BS later?

jamesblonde 9y ago

This is a good argument for why we should reject meta-narratives for how the world should work. Capitalism (and/or consumerism?) is one such narrative. Ignore or criticize data points that don't fit the meta-narrative. In that sense, Scandinavian policy is light years ahead, as it is pragmatic and have reasonably high amounts of evidence-driven policy (disclaimer, i live in Sweden).

a_tractor 9y ago

>doesn't have a market doesnt have supply and demand? scarcity of skill and resources isn't real? >shouldn't have a market So it does have a market, but shouldn't? >participants are unable to properly participate in it in any way that resembles a market Really? So I am not competing with others for a better doctor's limited time? I'm not working harder to attain more money to buy better insurance or afford better care? What are you talking about? Talk about bureaucratic bloat, regulatory overhead, regulatory capture/cronyism, the need for tort reform, or the fact that the insurance co ponzi business model dominates price negotiation and destroys any semblance of an efficient free market and you make start making sense.