5 ms·
The sentence you're objecting to isn't claiming that US healthcare is a completely free market (which, as you note, would be an unbelievably ignorant view to ho
by Steuard 13y ago
The sentence you're objecting to isn't claiming that US healthcare is a completely free market (which, as you note, would be an unbelievably ignorant view to hold... literally unbelievably). It's claiming that certain failures of the fairly-free US system already illustrate the sorts of failures that would plague a free(er) system.
You may or may not agree with that conclusion, but it's a far more plausible view for someone to hold than what you seem to have thought the original poster meant.
- zdean 13y ago"US healthcare system is in fact a perfect demonstration of the dangers of a completely free market" The commenter actually says exactly that...that the US healthcare system is (in fact) a perfect demonstration of a completely free market.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoNo, it is a comment about the idea that the failures come from it not being free enough. Saying that something demonstrates the dangers of x by saying that the things that are wrong with it are features of it moving in the direction of x is not the same as saying that the thing is x. I could say that something nearly catching fire and getting badly scorched is a perfect demonstration of the dangers of fire, but that would not mean that I think that the thing has actually caught fire, it just means that I am using a perfectly normal rhetorical device to describe that I think that the fire is a danger.
- krichman 13y agoThe part you quoted doesn't support your argument, re-read it and then disagree with what was actually claimed if you'd like.
- nollidge 13y agoOP: "perfect demonstration of the dangers of a completely free market" You: "perfect demonstration of a completely free market" Do you see where the difference is?