2 ms·
> And talking about a "free" market is a red herring. There's no reason to believe that the current industry actually wishes to converge on uniform prices with
by cryptonector 3y ago
> And talking about a "free" market is a red herring. There's no reason to believe that the current industry actually wishes to converge on uniform prices with upfront transparency [...]
Adam Smith himself noted that capitalists seek rent. That doesn't mean that capitalism is all bad. The healthcare industry almost certainly does not want a free market, but so what, it's about whether the state makes it so there's a free market anyways or else makes deals with the industry it ought to regulate.
Regulatory capture is a thing, a very real thing, and a very big deal.
> Also to have an actual free market we'd need to eliminate things like mandatory pharmaceutical prescriptions and patents, which there is unfortunately very little support for doing.
Patents are not the problem. Though I'd be happy to see patent terms shortened, especially for software patents.
- mindslight 3y agoI didn't say "capitalism is bad". I pointed out that the state of the current market players are so far from what you'd expect in a "free" market, that pushing to make the market incrementally more free is likely to do the exact opposite by increasing the coercive powers of the already-entrenched interests. Once the health "insurance" cartels are put out of business, providers are legally required to publish uniform price schedules and ahead of time quotes, pharmaceuticals can be freely bought across borders, mandatory prescriptions are eliminated, residencies are funded privately, etc, then maybe there is a chance at a freed market fostering a functioning market. But not one step before then.