3 ms·
I don't want to start a deep thread on this, but I do want to point out that one of the advantages of a free market is that you only have to make these choices
by tc 17y ago
I don't want to start a deep thread on this, but I do want to point out that one of the advantages of a free market is that you only have to make these choices for yourself, not for others.
You can select an insurance policy with rationing and a $10M lifetime benefit, and I can select an insurance policy without rationing but with a flat $1M lifetime benefit. The system we have now is not free because governments dictate what kind of policies medical insurers can offer, preventing consumers from making many of these types of choices.
When we decide that one size fits all, then the only choice is to have politicians and bureaucrats making these decisions for everyone.
When you make a decision about what your life is worth, that seems morally sane. When someone else makes a decision about how much your life is worth, that seems morally objectionable. Only free markets allow us to mostly avoid the latter choice.
- Raphael 17y agoIf the national health plan is inadequate for the rich, a private system will continue to cater to them. The point of the national plan is to raise the floor.
- tc 17y agoSocializing healthcare drives up costs for everyone, pushing higher quality alternatives out of range for more people. Providers no longer compete on price, and consumers no longer factor price when selecting providers or moderating their use of resources. Combined, these factors will make (and already have been making) private alternatives unrealistic for all but the most wealthy, whereas prior to the government takeover of healthcare, high-quality private care was well within reach for (at least) the lower-middle class.