3 ms·

Honestly, a free market might even be better than what we have (though something like single-payer would be ideal). As usual, we have the weird half-assed worst

Honestly, a free market might even be better than what we have (though something like single-payer would be ideal). As usual, we have the weird half-assed worst of both works policy solution that comes from neither self-consistent solution being palatable to the electorate.

AstralStorm 7y ago
It's not just about free market. It has to be transparent to customers or you get the exact result you have now. This means at least a minimum amount of regulation is necessary.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
In my view a free market can only work if participation is optional. When you have a heart attack you can't really negotiate with the ambulance or the hospital. There needs to be some kind of regulations to keep costs in check. But I would advocate total price transparency so you can at least shop around before non-emergency treatments. Also, insured and uninsured patients need to be charged the same money.
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  > When you have a heart attack you can't really negotiate with the ambulance or the hospital I mean, in some crazy alternate universe, this is exactly what insurance is for. I pay you a fixed premium ahead of time in exchange for you paying out the costs when it occurs. Truly we're in the darkest timeline.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Right, my comment probably made it sound like I'm more in favor of a free market than I am. The point I was making that what we have now has so many deep flaws that it's likely that a free market would still be better, and a lot of the price stupidity you describe can be traced back to regulation encumbrance. Also note that I'm assuming some level of baseline regulation on the order of other industries, just as single-payer would still have some market characteristics (like choosing doctors etc).
einpoklum 7y ago
There is no such thing as a "free market". Markets are inherently unfree. Money-exchange-based economic systems do not form without significant centralization of power. Also, and regardless - once such an exchange-based economy ("market") forms, wealth in general and capital in particular tends to get concentrated, and the market manipulated and slanted even relative to its own internal ideology. So, a "free market" of health care would just be a reshuffling of the oligarchic arrangements.
- username90 7y ago
  But the market could be a lot freer than it is now, most issues with USA's healthcare would disappear if it was easy to open up a cheap hospital using doctors educated in Mexico in order to serve people who currently can't afford healthcare. Then suddenly the established doctors and hospitals would be forced to motivate their much higher costs, creating competition which is good for the system. Some rich people will probably choose the more expensive option still, but most poor and middle class people are probably fine with foreign level doctors.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    This is not like consumer goods where bad quality of something you bought won’t kill you. We still need safety standards, otherwise the country will be flooded with quack doctors who are cheap but also hurt people.

AstralStorm 7y ago

It's not just about free market. It has to be transparent to customers or you get the exact result you have now. This means at least a minimum amount of regulation is necessary.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

In my view a free market can only work if participation is optional. When you have a heart attack you can't really negotiate with the ambulance or the hospital. There needs to be some kind of regulations to keep costs in check. But I would advocate total price transparency so you can at least shop around before non-emergency treatments. Also, insured and uninsured patients need to be charged the same money.

kthejoker2 7y ago
> When you have a heart attack you can't really negotiate with the ambulance or the hospital I mean, in some crazy alternate universe, this is exactly what insurance is for. I pay you a fixed premium ahead of time in exchange for you paying out the costs when it occurs. Truly we're in the darkest timeline.
wutbrodo 7y ago
Right, my comment probably made it sound like I'm more in favor of a free market than I am. The point I was making that what we have now has so many deep flaws that it's likely that a free market would still be better, and a lot of the price stupidity you describe can be traced back to regulation encumbrance. Also note that I'm assuming some level of baseline regulation on the order of other industries, just as single-payer would still have some market characteristics (like choosing doctors etc).

einpoklum 7y ago

There is no such thing as a "free market". Markets are inherently unfree. Money-exchange-based economic systems do not form without significant centralization of power. Also, and regardless - once such an exchange-based economy ("market") forms, wealth in general and capital in particular tends to get concentrated, and the market manipulated and slanted even relative to its own internal ideology. So, a "free market" of health care would just be a reshuffling of the oligarchic arrangements.

username90 7y ago
But the market could be a lot freer than it is now, most issues with USA's healthcare would disappear if it was easy to open up a cheap hospital using doctors educated in Mexico in order to serve people who currently can't afford healthcare. Then suddenly the established doctors and hospitals would be forced to motivate their much higher costs, creating competition which is good for the system. Some rich people will probably choose the more expensive option still, but most poor and middle class people are probably fine with foreign level doctors.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  This is not like consumer goods where bad quality of something you bought won’t kill you. We still need safety standards, otherwise the country will be flooded with quack doctors who are cheap but also hurt people.