4 ms·

I get irritated when people claim that free markets are a silver bullet for the ills of society. Even if you ignore the cruelty of not providing healthcare to

I get irritated when people claim that free markets are a silver bullet for the ills of society. Even if you ignore the cruelty of not providing healthcare to people who can't afford it. How does the free market deal with community impact of untreated health problems? For example, highly infectious diseases which are relatively easy to treat but people may not be able to afford treatment for (post-exposure treatment for rabies, scarlet fever, etc)? Do we just quarantine these people until they die or someone pays for treatment? If we treat these people for free, we're now subsidizing health care. Where do you draw the line? Why don't we apply free market principles to law enforcement, fire services, and utilities?

deelowe 13y ago
> Why don't we apply free market principles to law enforcement, fire services, and utilities? Some utilities are starting to do this actually. Where I live Gas is provided by multiple servicers who setup contracts with the gas provided(sort of like a commodities market). There's been some talk about doing something similar with water as there's been some serious corruption uncovered with water billing in my area. Some fire departments are a combination of private and volunteer efforts. There's not many issues with this AFAIK. I used to live in a town like this and no one ever complained. Regarding the police, for better or worse, they are more or less treated as part of the judicial branch of government. I don't think many people would argue the police(as it exists today) should be private. That said, the system as it exists today is corrupt and resembles more of a military than a group dedicated to "protecting and serving." There are private police types in Texas and AFAIK, it works fine. Same goes for private bounty hunters. That said, most of the above aren't for profit services, so it's hard to compare them with medical, which is an industry that must sustain a profit to progress. When governments become profit centers, you will have problems. Considering the problems we have now with medical, less regulation around competition would certainly be a good thing. For example, I should be able to call and get prices for common services so that I can compare doctors. Not my employer(nor the government) should be allowed to provide me with subsidized insurance(except in welfare cases). I should be able to buy insurance from a provider anywhere in the country. I should be able to negotiate rates on my own behalf instead of the insurance provider doing it for me. Insurance providers should not get preferential treatment from doctors and/or hospitals. Fix these and things will get better. There will still be issues, but at least the market would be more efficient and prices would start going down.
- ryanackley 13y ago
  I don't think we're on opposing sides of the argument. I agree with a lot of your points. Note that some of your proposals are actually asking for more regulation. For example, employer provided insurance is "subsidized" from your paycheck. It's part of the total cost of your employment. I completely agree with you though. If employers just paid you an extra $20k/year (conservative estimate of group health insurance for a single employee with a wife and a kid) and let you shop around for insurance, it would lead to cheaper health care costs. However, you would have to interfere with the labor market to achieve it by introducing laws that prevented employers from offering group health insurance plans as a fringe benefit. If you did this, who says they would then pass the savings on to their employees as a raise unless you also included that requirement in the new regulations. The point of all this being that free markets are unicorns. It's really all a balancing act and there are so many ripple effects from anything we change about the system, there is no way to predict the outcome beforehand.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    It would probably be sufficient to equalize the tax treatment of employer provided insurance and wages (currently insurance is paid for with pre-tax dollars, wages with post-tax dollars).
  - deelowe 13y ago
    Yeah. Though I'm fairly libertarian in my beliefs, I'm in full favor of regulation that encourages competition(e.g. setting up commodities markets to deal with the utilities/necessary monopolies issues). > If you did this, who says they would then pass the savings on to their employees as a raise unless you also included that requirement in the new regulations. No one. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's one we need to take ASAP. > The point of all this being that free markets are unicorns. They are when a "free market" country fails to recognize that it's really ran by crony capitalism and corporatism. I firmly believe at this point that corporations and the laws surrounding them(e.g. the ones that treat them the same as an individual, or better) undermines the whole concept of a free market.
- RodericDay 13y ago

deelowe 13y ago

> Why don't we apply free market principles to law enforcement, fire services, and utilities? Some utilities are starting to do this actually. Where I live Gas is provided by multiple servicers who setup contracts with the gas provided(sort of like a commodities market). There's been some talk about doing something similar with water as there's been some serious corruption uncovered with water billing in my area. Some fire departments are a combination of private and volunteer efforts. There's not many issues with this AFAIK. I used to live in a town like this and no one ever complained. Regarding the police, for better or worse, they are more or less treated as part of the judicial branch of government. I don't think many people would argue the police(as it exists today) should be private. That said, the system as it exists today is corrupt and resembles more of a military than a group dedicated to "protecting and serving." There are private police types in Texas and AFAIK, it works fine. Same goes for private bounty hunters. That said, most of the above aren't for profit services, so it's hard to compare them with medical, which is an industry that must sustain a profit to progress. When governments become profit centers, you will have problems. Considering the problems we have now with medical, less regulation around competition would certainly be a good thing. For example, I should be able to call and get prices for common services so that I can compare doctors. Not my employer(nor the government) should be allowed to provide me with subsidized insurance(except in welfare cases). I should be able to buy insurance from a provider anywhere in the country. I should be able to negotiate rates on my own behalf instead of the insurance provider doing it for me. Insurance providers should not get preferential treatment from doctors and/or hospitals. Fix these and things will get better. There will still be issues, but at least the market would be more efficient and prices would start going down.

ryanackley 13y ago
I don't think we're on opposing sides of the argument. I agree with a lot of your points. Note that some of your proposals are actually asking for more regulation. For example, employer provided insurance is "subsidized" from your paycheck. It's part of the total cost of your employment. I completely agree with you though. If employers just paid you an extra $20k/year (conservative estimate of group health insurance for a single employee with a wife and a kid) and let you shop around for insurance, it would lead to cheaper health care costs. However, you would have to interfere with the labor market to achieve it by introducing laws that prevented employers from offering group health insurance plans as a fringe benefit. If you did this, who says they would then pass the savings on to their employees as a raise unless you also included that requirement in the new regulations. The point of all this being that free markets are unicorns. It's really all a balancing act and there are so many ripple effects from anything we change about the system, there is no way to predict the outcome beforehand.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  It would probably be sufficient to equalize the tax treatment of employer provided insurance and wages (currently insurance is paid for with pre-tax dollars, wages with post-tax dollars).
- deelowe 13y ago
  Yeah. Though I'm fairly libertarian in my beliefs, I'm in full favor of regulation that encourages competition(e.g. setting up commodities markets to deal with the utilities/necessary monopolies issues). > If you did this, who says they would then pass the savings on to their employees as a raise unless you also included that requirement in the new regulations. No one. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's one we need to take ASAP. > The point of all this being that free markets are unicorns. They are when a "free market" country fails to recognize that it's really ran by crony capitalism and corporatism. I firmly believe at this point that corporations and the laws surrounding them(e.g. the ones that treat them the same as an individual, or better) undermines the whole concept of a free market.
RodericDay 13y ago