4 ms·

Few will admit that we don't have anything close to a free market in healthcare today (or for the past several decades). A truly free market is one unfettered b

Few will admit that we don't have anything close to a free market in healthcare today (or for the past several decades). A truly free market is one unfettered by the FDA, medicare, medicaid, doctor regulations, hospital regulations, HMO regulations, insurance regulations, etc. All of these controls were ostensibly put in place to protect patients, but in actuality they serve to slow innovation and true access to medicine to a crawl. It is true that some people will choose badly when left to their own devices, but that's better than forcing the same dumb rule on everyone. Each of us is an end in ourselves. So long as we do not violate the negative rights of others, we are responsible only for our own lives, not the lives of our brothers.

danssig 16y ago
For someone who puts so much faith in free markets you don't appear to understand how they work. In your studies, look up "market elasticity" for a clue.
- iwwr 16y ago
  How is that relevant here?
  - danssig 16y ago
    Health care is, by definition, an inelastic market.
    - iwwr 16y ago
      The point being? Sorry if I'm being dense, but no market is truly elastic.
      - danssig 16y ago
        Not true. I don't have to buy a smart phone, for example. I can live a wonderfully productive life with a normal cell phone. This means the price we see for a smart phone tracks very close to its value. You cannot do without health care. If you get sick you will pay any and every price to get well. If you die, your money is worthless anyway. A market you cannot opt out of is inelastic and normal free market forces wont be able to find the correct price as they would in a more elastic market.
        gjm11 16y ago
        You cannot do without food either, but food markets are pretty elastic because you can do without food from any particular seller. If there's a variety of healthcare providers of reasonable quality then the usual market mechanisms can work. Which isn't to say either (1) that they actually do work well in, say, the USA, or (2) that some less free-market-based system mightn't work better. (I'm in the UK; the situation in the US looks absolutely horrifying to me. I don't know what an ideal healthcare system looks like, but it surely can't be that.)
        vannevar 16y ago
        An individual's need for food is generally stable, predictable, and bounded (eg, 2500 calories/day). An individual's need for health care is unpredictable and unbounded, meaning that you can be financially ruined by it in a sudden and catastrophic way. Having a variety of providers doesn't address this crucial difference.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  The phrase "market elasticity" is meaningless. Elasticity in economics describes the relationship between two variables (normally price and demand which is price elasticity [of demand] but by no means exclusively). But unless you define your variables (or state what sort of elasticity) it's not a useful term and certainly not something I'd be bandying about while suggesting that someone else didn't have a clue.
  - danssig 16y ago
    >The phrase "market elasticity" is meaningless. Nonsensical. What kind of market theory are you following that doesn't factor in market elasticity? Rush Limbaugh eco 101?
    - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
      Market theory as I was taught at university during my degree. And you? As I said the term elasticity isn't meaningless, but without defining the variables you are defining as elastic (or inelastic) it doesn't make sense, at least not without assumptions which obviously may or may be wrong. Personally by default I'd assume that you were referring to price elasticity of demand - that is the relationship between changes in price and the resulting change in demand, however there are many other types of elasticity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)). So if you want to explain exactly which variables "market elasticity" refers to then that would be great, but as "market" is a very loose term, on it's own it's not very useful.
      - danssig 16y ago
        If you have a degree in economics then you should know very well that health care can not function properly in a laissez faire market. Customers cannot simply "opt out" of health care.
        Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
        I've not said anything about what I believe in this area (certainly not in this section of the thread), I've merely questioned your use of the term "market elasticity" and what exactly you mean by it.
ThomPete 16y ago
How wrong you are. No man is an island. Neither you, nor anything you create is created in isolation. Dependencies are ever-present and failing to understand this leads to failed ideas such as "true free market" not unlike the idea of "true communism". In reality the very fact that you are alive to write your words is a testament of other peoples effort including your parents to guard you against the many many dangers in this world. Ultimately you don't own the right to anything, not even yourself. It's an agreed upon right not a natural law. I agree that there are some times too many regulations. But claiming what you do here is simply wrong in a very unfortunate Ayn Rand way.
- pzxc 16y ago
  Then it's wrong in a very unfortunate Founding Fathers way also. Because the Declaration of Independence states that we DO have inalienable rights and they ARE natural laws (i.e., endowed by our creator, which is a religious way of saying natural law).
  - natep 16y ago
    The Declaration of Independence says it, so it must be true? The DoI is, among other things, a social contract that most Americans have agreed to, which is exactly what ThomPete said.
    - pzxc 16y ago
      My point is that saying the belief is Ayn-Randian is disingenuous, because a lot of founding fathers believed that also. But I guess it's easier to diss on Ayn Rand than it is on Thomas Jefferson.
      - ThomPete 16y ago
        It's easier to diss on Ayn Rand because her claims are so much bigger. I am not American btw, so I don't have any specific problem dissing Jefferson, I just don't see why I should. I am not against property rights I am against the idea that property rights are natural rights. I can forgive Jefferson for living in different times, but Ayn Rand should have known better.

danssig 16y ago

For someone who puts so much faith in free markets you don't appear to understand how they work. In your studies, look up "market elasticity" for a clue.

iwwr 16y ago
How is that relevant here?
- danssig 16y ago
  Health care is, by definition, an inelastic market.
  - iwwr 16y ago
    The point being? Sorry if I'm being dense, but no market is truly elastic.
    - danssig 16y ago
      Not true. I don't have to buy a smart phone, for example. I can live a wonderfully productive life with a normal cell phone. This means the price we see for a smart phone tracks very close to its value. You cannot do without health care. If you get sick you will pay any and every price to get well. If you die, your money is worthless anyway. A market you cannot opt out of is inelastic and normal free market forces wont be able to find the correct price as they would in a more elastic market.
      - gjm11 16y ago
        You cannot do without food either, but food markets are pretty elastic because you can do without food from any particular seller. If there's a variety of healthcare providers of reasonable quality then the usual market mechanisms can work. Which isn't to say either (1) that they actually do work well in, say, the USA, or (2) that some less free-market-based system mightn't work better. (I'm in the UK; the situation in the US looks absolutely horrifying to me. I don't know what an ideal healthcare system looks like, but it surely can't be that.)
        vannevar 16y ago
        An individual's need for food is generally stable, predictable, and bounded (eg, 2500 calories/day). An individual's need for health care is unpredictable and unbounded, meaning that you can be financially ruined by it in a sudden and catastrophic way. Having a variety of providers doesn't address this crucial difference.
Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
The phrase "market elasticity" is meaningless. Elasticity in economics describes the relationship between two variables (normally price and demand which is price elasticity [of demand] but by no means exclusively). But unless you define your variables (or state what sort of elasticity) it's not a useful term and certainly not something I'd be bandying about while suggesting that someone else didn't have a clue.
- danssig 16y ago
  >The phrase "market elasticity" is meaningless. Nonsensical. What kind of market theory are you following that doesn't factor in market elasticity? Rush Limbaugh eco 101?
  - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
    Market theory as I was taught at university during my degree. And you? As I said the term elasticity isn't meaningless, but without defining the variables you are defining as elastic (or inelastic) it doesn't make sense, at least not without assumptions which obviously may or may be wrong. Personally by default I'd assume that you were referring to price elasticity of demand - that is the relationship between changes in price and the resulting change in demand, however there are many other types of elasticity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)). So if you want to explain exactly which variables "market elasticity" refers to then that would be great, but as "market" is a very loose term, on it's own it's not very useful.
    - danssig 16y ago
      If you have a degree in economics then you should know very well that health care can not function properly in a laissez faire market. Customers cannot simply "opt out" of health care.
      - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
        I've not said anything about what I believe in this area (certainly not in this section of the thread), I've merely questioned your use of the term "market elasticity" and what exactly you mean by it.

ThomPete 16y ago

How wrong you are. No man is an island. Neither you, nor anything you create is created in isolation. Dependencies are ever-present and failing to understand this leads to failed ideas such as "true free market" not unlike the idea of "true communism". In reality the very fact that you are alive to write your words is a testament of other peoples effort including your parents to guard you against the many many dangers in this world. Ultimately you don't own the right to anything, not even yourself. It's an agreed upon right not a natural law. I agree that there are some times too many regulations. But claiming what you do here is simply wrong in a very unfortunate Ayn Rand way.

pzxc 16y ago
Then it's wrong in a very unfortunate Founding Fathers way also. Because the Declaration of Independence states that we DO have inalienable rights and they ARE natural laws (i.e., endowed by our creator, which is a religious way of saying natural law).
- natep 16y ago
  The Declaration of Independence says it, so it must be true? The DoI is, among other things, a social contract that most Americans have agreed to, which is exactly what ThomPete said.
  - pzxc 16y ago
    My point is that saying the belief is Ayn-Randian is disingenuous, because a lot of founding fathers believed that also. But I guess it's easier to diss on Ayn Rand than it is on Thomas Jefferson.
    - ThomPete 16y ago
      It's easier to diss on Ayn Rand because her claims are so much bigger. I am not American btw, so I don't have any specific problem dissing Jefferson, I just don't see why I should. I am not against property rights I am against the idea that property rights are natural rights. I can forgive Jefferson for living in different times, but Ayn Rand should have known better.