3 ms·

>For example, the free market price for insulin is basically infinite because type 1 diabetics need a constant supply of it or else they die. I've been to plac

>For example, the free market price for insulin is basically infinite because type 1 diabetics need a constant supply of it or else they die. I've been to places in the Philippines where all available water is either on private property or being sold by private vendors. The price of water did not go to infinity, in fact you could buy a 1L bottle for something like 10 pesos, which is like $0.20. I'm not so sure a free market for necessities results in infinite price. If the price were truly near-infinite the entire economy of workers and capital would flock to it in seek of infinite profits and competition would become fierce.

slg 4y ago
>I've been to places in the Philippines where all available water is either on private property or being sold by private vendors. The price of water did not go to infinity, in fact you could buy a 1L bottle for something like 10 pesos, which is like $0.20. The "basically" there was meant to show that I was being somewhat facetious. There are of course other factors at play. First the supplier wants to maximize profit and not price. The highest price doesn't necessarily yield the highest profit if it prices some people out of the market. Also a small group can't maintain a monopoly over a necessity required by a large group without facing a literal revolt. However when the group being taken advantage of is small, resistance becomes much more difficult to achieve. It is a lot easier to oppress the 0.5% of the population that is a type 1 diabetic than the 100% of the population that needs water. >If the price were truly near-infinite the entire economy of workers and capital would flock to it in seek of infinite profits and competition would become fierce. This would depend on some basic Economics 101 assumptions being true such as a commodity product in an industry with low barrier to entry and no economies of scale. Those assumptions rarely hold in the real world, especially in healthcare.
- notch656a 4y ago
  In insulin sales the biggest barriers are regulatory. I thought you were talking about the free market, not the regulated market.
  - slg 4y ago
    That leads to the same question I asked in the other comment chain. If you think the costs of the US healthcare are caused by the market being too regulated, doesn't that imply that you think cheaper markets are freer markets? Would you say that almost all of our peer nations take a more free market approach to healthcare than the US?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      > If you think the costs of the US healthcare are caused by the market being too regulated Yes >doesn't that imply that you think cheaper markets are freer markets? No. Example: You could imprison slaves and pick cotton, that doesn't mean the cheaper cotton is result of a free market, because it is predicated on force rather than voluntary exchange. >Would you say that almost all of our peer nations take a more free market approach to healthcare than the US? An interesting question. Possibly yes, possibly no, but forcing the tax for it under the gun of the tax man is a big strike against it being a free market, in any nation that taxes universally for it. I would have to contrast that against the gun of the regulator in the US effectively forcing the provider and consumer to follow their onerous constraints. One could make the argument that an otherwise unregulated but universal healthcare system might be considered a freer market, but I don't know enough about these other nations to say which ones that may be.
      - slg 4y ago
        > You could imprison slaves and pick cotton, that doesn't mean the cheaper cotton is result of a free market, because it is predicated on force rather than voluntary exchange. Isn't regulation against slavery inherently a restriction of a free market? There is obviously violent coercion baked into it, but from an economic perspective, it is basically an elimination of minimum wage which is an artificial limitation on the market. > Possibly yes, possibly no, but forcing the tax for it under the gun of the tax man is a big strike against it being a free market, in any nation that taxes universally for it. I would have to contrast that against the gun of the regulator in the US effectively forcing the provider and consumer to follow their onerous constraints. One could make the argument that an otherwise unregulated but universal healthcare system might be considered a freer market, but I don't know enough about these other nations to say which ones that may be. But whether the funding comes from public or private sources is not what most defines a free market. That comes from competition between buyers and sellers. I view US healthcare as more free market because buyers aren't nearly as limited. Many other countries restrict the market by centralizing purchasing through the government. This distortion of the free market gives the buyers more power which can result in lower negotiated prices. It isn't that healthcare markets in other countries are less regulated that makes them cheaper. It is that they are regulated in specific ways to make sure they are cheaper.

slg 4y ago

>I've been to places in the Philippines where all available water is either on private property or being sold by private vendors. The price of water did not go to infinity, in fact you could buy a 1L bottle for something like 10 pesos, which is like $0.20. The "basically" there was meant to show that I was being somewhat facetious. There are of course other factors at play. First the supplier wants to maximize profit and not price. The highest price doesn't necessarily yield the highest profit if it prices some people out of the market. Also a small group can't maintain a monopoly over a necessity required by a large group without facing a literal revolt. However when the group being taken advantage of is small, resistance becomes much more difficult to achieve. It is a lot easier to oppress the 0.5% of the population that is a type 1 diabetic than the 100% of the population that needs water. >If the price were truly near-infinite the entire economy of workers and capital would flock to it in seek of infinite profits and competition would become fierce. This would depend on some basic Economics 101 assumptions being true such as a commodity product in an industry with low barrier to entry and no economies of scale. Those assumptions rarely hold in the real world, especially in healthcare.

notch656a 4y ago
In insulin sales the biggest barriers are regulatory. I thought you were talking about the free market, not the regulated market.
- slg 4y ago
  That leads to the same question I asked in the other comment chain. If you think the costs of the US healthcare are caused by the market being too regulated, doesn't that imply that you think cheaper markets are freer markets? Would you say that almost all of our peer nations take a more free market approach to healthcare than the US?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    > If you think the costs of the US healthcare are caused by the market being too regulated Yes >doesn't that imply that you think cheaper markets are freer markets? No. Example: You could imprison slaves and pick cotton, that doesn't mean the cheaper cotton is result of a free market, because it is predicated on force rather than voluntary exchange. >Would you say that almost all of our peer nations take a more free market approach to healthcare than the US? An interesting question. Possibly yes, possibly no, but forcing the tax for it under the gun of the tax man is a big strike against it being a free market, in any nation that taxes universally for it. I would have to contrast that against the gun of the regulator in the US effectively forcing the provider and consumer to follow their onerous constraints. One could make the argument that an otherwise unregulated but universal healthcare system might be considered a freer market, but I don't know enough about these other nations to say which ones that may be.
    - slg 4y ago
      > You could imprison slaves and pick cotton, that doesn't mean the cheaper cotton is result of a free market, because it is predicated on force rather than voluntary exchange. Isn't regulation against slavery inherently a restriction of a free market? There is obviously violent coercion baked into it, but from an economic perspective, it is basically an elimination of minimum wage which is an artificial limitation on the market. > Possibly yes, possibly no, but forcing the tax for it under the gun of the tax man is a big strike against it being a free market, in any nation that taxes universally for it. I would have to contrast that against the gun of the regulator in the US effectively forcing the provider and consumer to follow their onerous constraints. One could make the argument that an otherwise unregulated but universal healthcare system might be considered a freer market, but I don't know enough about these other nations to say which ones that may be. But whether the funding comes from public or private sources is not what most defines a free market. That comes from competition between buyers and sellers. I view US healthcare as more free market because buyers aren't nearly as limited. Many other countries restrict the market by centralizing purchasing through the government. This distortion of the free market gives the buyers more power which can result in lower negotiated prices. It isn't that healthcare markets in other countries are less regulated that makes them cheaper. It is that they are regulated in specific ways to make sure they are cheaper.