Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a really, really bad guy.

[septimus]

@Sam_Stone

Who is terrified of her? On the right, they call her the gift that keeps on giving. They think she’s hilarious, not scary. Her ‘Green New Deal’ is the funniest thing to come out of Washington since Al Franken.

Is it amusing to argue against a young idealist who doesn’t even have a degree in electrical engineering? How about “one of the most cited scholars in history” with over 100 books and who has, even in old age, multiple professorships? Does he make you giggle too?

All of you should do yourself a favor and take time off from yet another re-run of a 2-hour lecture by Friedman or Rothbard and watch this 13-minute YouTube. You’ll also learn about Elin Ersson, a young heroine like AOC who used her seat — not in Congress but just on an airplane — to possibly save the life of a man.

Or keep giggling. You decide.

[UltraVires]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Have you considered taking Econ 102? Or 103? Or maybe even Econ 201? Because there’s all kinds of interesting and weird and very important edge cases where the relationship isn’t quite so simple. There’s a whole field, economic psychology, predicated on the reality that this just isn’t how humans work in the real world.

Seriously, people (most conservatives) keep coming into discussions on government actions and socialism/captialism with this Econ 101 material, and it’s like showing up to a physics conference thinking that F=M*A and being shocked and dismayed when people throw out a formula like this. It’s tiresome. Why yes, when it comes to who gets the tomato, the market is horribly efficient! When it comes to, say, anything related to medicine, the market is a moral and economic atrocity that needs to die sooner rather than later. Sometimes “basic economics” means “there’s more to this and things get fuzzier and more complicated, but this is the simplified model we teach to toddlers to help them understand the very basics”.

Yes, I took 3 semesters of college econ. Of course there is more to it. I cannot post a lengthy dissertation here. But the building blocks are what is sound in that the capitalist system has caused unmatched prosperity in the modern world. We have so much food that we have a problem with obesity. Could anyone imagine such a thing 200 years ago? We have so much food that we need people to quit eating so much of it because they are fat. So contrary to the poster above, we don’t have rich people hoarding the food while the working class starves; the system has given us food in abundance.

Now, your argument is a familiar one and it is that “healthcare” is different. I mean we can get air, water, food, and shelter through the regular system and get most other items efficiently, but there is an asterisk next to “healthcare.” But when you look at it, many of the problems in the healthcare system stem from the fact that we have embedded aspects of socialism in it for so long and do not allow free markets by over regulation and reliance on insurance for things that are not typically insurable.

At the outset, I put “healthcare” in quotes, because it is far too broad. The way to provide six-month checkup visits and birth control is a far different issue than how to provide open heart surgery or cancer treatment.

For routine care, having a third party pay for it is grossly inefficient. It makes as much sense as having your auto insurance cover gasoline or oil changes for your car. It causes price insensitivity because you don’t care if your doctor charges $50 or $300 for an office visit because you only pay your copay regardless of price.

The supply of doctors are limited by government regulations requiring an MD to do things that a nurse can do.

So, just with that, we have eliminated the basic things which makes markets work, then we complain that the markets don’t work and the proposed solution is to eliminate the markets entirely.

I’m sure you’ve heard all of these things, so I won’t continue down this line. But there is no reason that a market based system, one that has revolutionized the world and given it great prosperity, cannot be used in healthcare.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@UltraVires

But the building blocks are what is sound in that the capitalist system has caused unmatched prosperity in the modern world.

This is not true. What caused “unmatched prosperity in the modern world” is the controls placed on capitalism (unions, regulations, etc.). Without that, it’s a handful of very, very wealthy people and a shitload of serfs.

[GIGObuster]

@UltraVires

I’m sure you’ve heard all of these things, so I won’t continue down this line. But there is no reason that a market based system, one that has revolutionized the world and given it great prosperity, cannot be used in healthcare.

You know, in investing there is that line that goes like: “Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results” but the worst thing here is that the past performance of the markets has been found all over the developed world to be not best way to deal with health care.

And the thing is that I know history, I also do know that you are mostly right when there is competition and different ways to deliver a product or service are available. I do know a lot of examples like telephony where we get better results in the long run thanks to competition. (although when one thinks about it, that was also a market failure until government broke a monopoly here) But one just needs to be aware that regarding health care, the market gets into a situation that is closer to the tragedy of the commons.

https://www.rwjf.org/en/blog/2013/08/right_privilege_or.html

Either way, as a country the United States must deal with the fact that the health care workforce, facilities, and funds are available only in finite quantities. By failing to coordinate, systematize, or otherwise organize individuals’ pursuit of their rational goals in the world of health care, the U.S. population is mis-using its common resources related to health.

In this context, misuse occurs by many people and organizations with many different interests, with respect to many resources—for example: prescribing brand-name medications when generic substitutes would be equivalently effective at lower costs; opting for subspecialty care when primary care management would be more efficient; accessing emergency care and hospitalization for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions when timely access to primary care would be of greater value; health systems’ investment in new therapeutic modalities for limited groups of patients instead of enhancing availability of existing, evidence-based approaches for large groups of individuals in the population; spending on intensive end-of-life care when advanced directive conversations earlier in patients’ lives would have indicated some individuals’ preferences for comfort care only.

Consequently, individuals in the U.S. cannot uniformly maximize their health and therefore the aggregate population health is less than optimal. Instead, some individuals get to optimize their health while others are denied such opportunities; inefficiencies, inequities, and persistent disparities result. In other words, it seems that the U.S. health care system has many aspects of a tragedy of the commons.

And so it goes for how the corporations deal with the environment, currently the solution they are finding is to find very convenient to dump CO2 into our atmosphere with very little consequences.

[GIGObuster]

… Very little consequences to the corporations, that is.

[UltraVires]

@GIGObuster

You know, in investing there is that line that goes like: “Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results” but the worst thing here is that the past performance of the markets has been found all over the developed world to be not best way to deal with health care.

And the thing is that I know history, I also do know that you are mostly right when there is competition and different ways to deliver a product or service are available. I do know a lot of examples like telephony where we get better results in the long run thanks to competition. (although when one thinks about it, that was also a market failure until government broke a monopoly here) But one just needs to be aware that regarding health care, the market gets into a situation that is closer to the tragedy of the commons.

https://www.rwjf.org/en/blog/2013/08/right_privilege_or.html
And so it goes for how the corporations deal with the environment, currently the solution they are finding is to find very convenient to dump CO2 into our atmosphere with very little consequences.

First, I am not advocating for lawless capitalism. Laws against monopolies and price fixing, for example are needed to allow the system to work. I still do not believe that this is impossible or less likely to happen with healthcare.

The article you cite is unconvincing, especially on its basic premise:

@Your Cite

Either way, as a country the United States must deal with the fact that the health care workforce, facilities, and funds are available only in finite quantities. By failing to coordinate, systematize, or otherwise organize individuals’ pursuit of their rational goals in the world of health care, the U.S. population is mis-using its common resources related to health.

The conclusion does not follow. Every product or service is only available in “finite quantities.” Scarcity is the entire concept behind economics. But only in this area must we “coordinate, systematize, or otherwise organize” healthcare. It sounds like the old Soviet Union or Cuba.

The rest of the problems the article cites are a direct result of government intrusion into the market, not a good reason for more government intrusion.

What makes healthcare so fundamentally different than other necessities of life? We don’t need a government run food distribution scheme, for example. Now, what we should do with healthcare, like we do with food is to provide coverage for those who cannot afford it. That isn’t an argument for total control.

And under any system, even a government one, the rich will have better health care than those that are not rich, just like they have better of everything else.

[iiandyiiii]

@UltraVires

What makes healthcare so fundamentally different than other necessities of life? We don’t need a government run food distribution scheme, for example. Now, what we should do with healthcare, like we do with food is to provide coverage for those who cannot afford it, like we do with food. That isn’t an argument for total control.

What makes firefighting so fundamentally different? What makes road maintenance? What makes food and drug safety?

For that matter, we already do treat some healthcare differently. Active duty military members get entirely socialized health care. All their needs were met. When I was active duty, health care ceased to be a worry, since it was entirely paid for, no matter what health circumstances I faced. Obviously the government is capable of this, since they’ve been doing it for active duty military members for decades.

Many of us look at our system, and the system of Canada and many other countries, and see that their general outcomes are both better and cheaper than ours. And thus it’s reasonable to at least consider that maybe we ought to emulate their systems. Maybe there are good arguments against it, but “socialism = bad” is not one of them, since quite clearly socialized health care systems can work well and provide good outcomes.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@UltraVires

Yes, I took 3 semesters of college econ. Of course there is more to it. I cannot post a lengthy dissertation here. But the building blocks are what is sound in that the capitalist system has caused unmatched prosperity in the modern world.

In the last 30 years, neoliberalism has freed the fetters of things like unions and regulations from many parts of the economy. It has not left capitalism looking better.

We have so much food that we have a problem with obesity.

We have corporations whose primary goal is to get people to consume as much of their products as humanly possible. What do you expect is going to happen? They’re going to find ways to get people to consume as much as possible! They don’t care about public health - why should they? It’s not in their advantage to care.

Now, your argument is a familiar one and it is that “healthcare” is different. I mean we can get air, water, food, and shelter through the regular system and get most other items efficiently, but there is an asterisk next to “healthcare.”

There’s a pretty huge asterisk next to shelter as well, given that there are more empty homes than there are homeless people in both the UK and US (PhilosophyTube has an excellent video on the subject). We may need to put an asterisk next to “water” as well, at least in the third world. Air… I’m not sure if you’re serious; to the degree that air (the thing constantly around us) can be seen as a commodity, it is actively being destroyed by capitalism, and a legal system utterly incapable of grasping with how serious pollution is.

So… Capitalism has done pretty well with food. Shelter, water, and healthcare are kind of a mess. Air is an abomination.

But when you look at it, many of the problems in the healthcare system stem from the fact that we have embedded aspects of socialism in it for so long and do not allow free markets by over regulation and reliance on insurance for things that are not typically insurable.

At the outset, I put “healthcare” in quotes, because it is far too broad. The way to provide six-month checkup visits and birth control is a far different issue than how to provide open heart surgery or cancer treatment.

For routine care, having a third party pay for it is grossly inefficient. It makes as much sense as having your auto insurance cover gasoline or oil changes for your car. It causes price insensitivity because you don’t care if your doctor charges $50 or $300 for an office visit because you only pay your copay regardless of price.

Insurance isn’t a government system. That’s the free market at work, because people recognize that in the case of a catastrophe, they’re just going to end up dead because they can’t afford health care. So they pool their resources. You say it’s not a good thing to insure… But then how in the world are we to ever deal with health problems that individuals cannot consistently shoulder on their own? Health insurance didn’t just spring up fully formed and demand fealty, which people begrudgingly gave it. It is the market at work.

Meanwhile, basically every other first-world country has figured this shit out - the government handles it in one way or another, and the result is a system so wildly improved over what the US has that our reaction is basically to look on you with pity and dismay. The American system is somewhere between a joke and an atrocity. You would have to pay me literally tens of thousands of dollars above what I make here per year to convince me to take a job in the USA, that’s how valuable I consider the health care system here in Germany over the abortion of a system you have there.

The supply of doctors are limited by government regulations requiring an MD to do things that a nurse can do.

This does very little to solve the problem of venture capital firms buying the rights to drugs and jacking up the prices, but sure, maybe overregulation of doctors is a problem. Got any data on that, or…?

I’m sure you’ve heard all of these things, so I won’t continue down this line. But there is no reason that a market based system, one that has revolutionized the world and given it great prosperity, cannot be used in healthcare.

We keep trying and we keep getting worse results than any number of countries that have some form of universal government health care. How long do you want to keep trying before the absurdity of people trying to afford insulin on GoFundMe gets to be too much for you?

[Wolf333]

@UltraVires

What makes healthcare so fundamentally different than other necessities of life? We don’t need a government run food distribution scheme, for example. Now, what we should do with healthcare, like we do with food is to provide coverage for those who cannot afford it. That isn’t an argument for total control.

And under any system, even a government one, the rich will have better health care than those that are not rich, just like they have better of everything else.

<bolding mine>

Once, when I was going into anaphylaxis, the ambulance crew asked me which hospital I wanted to go to. My answer? “Whichever is fastest.” Do you know what my answer is going to be every single time I am asked that question? The same.

Do you know why that is? Because at that point, I am in no way capable of making an informed decision. My biggest priority is “breathe, now”.

Oh, and if I call an ambulance from my apartment, it is 100% covered by my insurance. If I call an ambulance from my office, it costs me $300. Do you know what I’m going to do every time I call an ambulance from my office? Pay $300, because I really do not have a choice. Sure, I could have a co-worker drive me, but that increases time for the “breathe, now” thing, and increases risk of an accident.

That’s why healthcare is different.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Wolf333

<bolding mine>

Once, when I was going into anaphylaxis, the ambulance crew asked me which hospital I wanted to go to. My answer? “Whichever is fastest.” Do you know what my answer is going to be every single time I am asked that question? The same.

Do you know why that is? Because at that point, I am in no way capable of making an informed decision. My biggest priority is “breathe, now”.

Oh, and if I call an ambulance from my apartment, it is 100% covered by my insurance. If I call an ambulance from my office, it costs me $300. Do you know what I’m going to do every time I call an ambulance from my office? Pay $300, because I really do not have a choice. Sure, I could have a co-worker drive me, but that increases time for the “breathe, now” thing, and increases risk of an accident.

That’s why healthcare is different.

Slight correction: that’s one of the many reasons why healthcare is different. But they all come down to similar problems - people don’t have the choice to shop around, the choice to refuse to pay some price, the choice to go to a different supplier… Capitalism fundamentally falls apart at countless points in the process.

[k9bfriender]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Slight correction: that’s one of the many reasons why healthcare is different. But they all come down to similar problems - people don’t have the choice to shop around, the choice to refuse to pay some price, the choice to go to a different supplier… Capitalism fundamentally falls apart at countless points in the process.

Capitalism is the best way of distributing resources according to wants.

It fails miserably at allocating the resources that people need.

[UltraVires]

@Wolf333

<bolding mine>

Once, when I was going into anaphylaxis, the ambulance crew asked me which hospital I wanted to go to. My answer? “Whichever is fastest.” Do you know what my answer is going to be every single time I am asked that question? The same.

Do you know why that is? Because at that point, I am in no way capable of making an informed decision. My biggest priority is “breathe, now”.

Oh, and if I call an ambulance from my apartment, it is 100% covered by my insurance. If I call an ambulance from my office, it costs me $300. Do you know what I’m going to do every time I call an ambulance from my office? Pay $300, because I really do not have a choice. Sure, I could have a co-worker drive me, but that increases time for the “breathe, now” thing, and increases risk of an accident.

That’s why healthcare is different.

Emergency treatment is only a small portion of health care. The government provides for this in many other areas like with price gouging laws. You pick out an emergency area and decide the entire industry should be regulated based on that small portion.

See my post above. There is no reason why an ambulance ride to the hospital should be treated the same way by the same system as a routine doctor’s visit. You can shop around for that. If you paid out of pocket, and the government got out of the way, you would see price competition

[GIGObuster]

UltraVires: What iiandyiiii, Budget Player Cadet and others said.

This reminded of a documentary on the health care of places like Switzerland, they had a very similar irrational health care system like the one we have, they changed it and now even the ones that opposed it report that they should not had bothered.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/script.html

PASCAL COUCHEPIN, President, Swiss Confederation: Everybody has the right to health care.

T.R. REID: [on camera] Yeah. Now, see, that’s striking for an American because we would certainly say everyone’s entitled to an education–

Pres. PASCAL COUCHEPIN: Yes.

T.R. REID: --everyone is entitled to legal protection, if you get in trouble with the law. But we don’t say that everyone’s entitled to health care.

Pres. PASCAL COUCHEPIN: Why? Because it is a profound need for people to be sure that if they are struck by destiny, by a stroke of destiny, they can have a good health system.

T.R. REID: [voice-over] Dreifuss, from the opposite political camp, agrees.

RUTH DREIFUSS: I think it’s a basic human right. This is really the aim and this is really the reason why I think that everybody now, or a large, large majority, would renew the confidence in this system because they see what it means to have a universal coverage.

T.R. REID: But I wondered about LAMal’s impact on drug and insurance companies. Pierre Marcel Revaz is CEO of Groupe Mutuel, one of Switzerland’s biggest insurance companies. What’s different here is that many Swiss insurers were already non-profit, so the transformation was easier than it might be for us. Ten years on, the insurers are doing fine. As in Germany, a lack of profit has not meant a lack of competition.

PIERRE-MARCEL REVAZ, CEO, Groupe Mutuel: [subtitles] It’s very competitive because each company wants to keep its old customers and get new clients. So there’s extreme competition for service and price.

T.R. REID: The benefit package here is fixed – it’s the same for everybody – so companies compete in other ways.

[on camera] Is this one of the ways you compete with other companies? You say, “We’ll pay faster”?

PIERRE-MARCEL REVAZ: [subtitles] Yes, it’s one of the elements of competition, but the main one is the price.

T.R. REID: [voice-over] Groupe Mutuel has a strong incentive to keep administrative costs low.

PIERRE-MARCEL REVAZ: [subtitles] Our administrative costs are 5.5. percent, so we’re performing well.

T.R. REID: Do you know what that figure is in American health insurance companies? The average administrative cost is about 22 percent, and you’re running at 5 percent.

[voice-over] But where the Swiss insurance companies can make a profit is on supplemental coverage for, say, better hospital rooms. This is also how they attract more customers. But what about the drug companies?

[on camera] In America, the drug companies say, “Well, if you cut the price we get for the drugs, then we won’t have as much money for research and innovation.” Is that a legitimate argument?

RUTH DREIFUSS: It was the same argument here in Switzerland.

T.R. REID: I’m sure.

RUTH DREIFUSS: But I can say also that the Swiss pharmaceutical industry 10 years after this struggle is not bad. In the international competition, I think the Swiss are still belonging to the top 10. And when you hear them, they are not crying about the bad shape of their industry.

T.R. REID: [voice-over] That may be because Swiss drug companies still make more than a third of their profits from the less-regulated U.S. market.

[on camera] One of the problems we have in America is that many people – it’s a huge number of people – go bankrupt because of medical bills. Some studies say 700,000 people a year. How many people in Switzerland go bankrupt because of medical bills?

Pres. PASCAL COUCHEPIN: Nobody. It doesn’t happen. It would be a huge scandal if it happens.

[foolsguinea]

UltraVires, I think you blew past something when it came to the action of markets in society. Are you unfamiliar with the “tragedy of the commons,” do you deny its historical existence, or do you consider it a good thing?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

At this point the free market absolutists who want to argue that the free market can do a better job at providing health care feel less like economists and more like evangelists. It’s ridiculous. We have so much evidence from across the world, and somehow, we’re still arguing that if only the free market stepped in, it’d solve all our problems. Unbelievable.

[Grim_Render]

Earlier today, I posted this in a GD thread. This might have been a better fit for it:

"Anyway, my very local paper ran a human interest story this weekend. It was about a family whose daughter, at the age of 13 was diagnosed with something like a weak blood vessel in the brain. (Unclippable uncoilable MCA) In a very difficult location. She was put on a “watchful waiting” program. About 2 years ago, when she was 17, there were signs that it was weakening further and might rupture soon. It seems to be a very rare thing, and required specialization not available locally. The family went to New York, to a Dr. Amir Dehdashti.

Among the things that were explained to them at the hospital was that a down-payment of 35 000 $ was expected before they even got to see the doctor.

The operation was successful, otherwise I guess it wouldn’t have made a good human interest story. During the days in New York the family mentions passing an ambulance trying to tend to someone who’d been involved in an accident. The bleeding man did not want to go in the ambulance because he could not afford it. It did make them reflect on how they’d gotten shipped across the world to best specialists, all covered by the Norwegian health care system, while the Americans in the same city could not afford an ambulance.

Which makes me think: If you really need it, the odds of seeing the best specialists in the US are probably better for the average Norwegian than for Joe Average American. Maybe way batter. So the current US system is working quite well for us. Not so much for the nation whose people may have to refuse ambulances when injured, because they can’t afford them"

@UltraVires

Emergency treatment is only a small portion of health care. The government provides for this in many other areas like with price gouging laws. You pick out an emergency area and decide the entire industry should be regulated based on that small portion.

See my post above. There is no reason why an ambulance ride to the hospital should be treated the same way by the same system as a routine doctor’s visit. You can shop around for that. If you paid out of pocket, and the government got out of the way, you would see price competition

Well. There is an area of economics called health care economics. Ironically founded by an American, Kenneth Arrow. It is an area where professional health care economics people spends quite a lot of man-hours working on how markets and health care interact.

And they partially agree with you, UltraVires. Things like emergencies, serious illnesses etc is an area where markets break down. It is because of what is known as price elasticity. A measure of how easy it is to refuse a purchase if you find the price too high. If the customer do not have the ability to refuse a purchase, prices will obviously skyrocket. Or at least rise until other mechanisms than the normal supply and demand kick in. Which may happen at stratospheric prices.

Markets tend to work in areas such as Lasik and liposuction, where life and health is not at stake.

Where they disagree though, is that the market would handle all the other aspects of health care would work well under a market. There is a scale from utterly borked to well-functioning, after all.
A health care market does have other problems. For example, there is an extreme asymmetry in information, customer demand is irregular and unpredictable, sellers profit motive is in conflict with his role as caretaker of the patients health, product uncertainty, high barriers to entry, price discrimination and lack of pricing clarity, for health care insurance the customers most in need of the product are the least attractive customers… that is only a partial list of the first health care economics papers list of ways health care does not function like a normal commodity in a market.
Many have been identified since, I think.

[WillFarnaby]

@Grim_Render

Earlier today, I posted this in a GD thread. This might have been a better fit for it:

"Anyway, my very local paper ran a human interest story this weekend. It was about a family whose daughter, at the age of 13 was diagnosed with something like a weak blood vessel in the brain. (Unclippable uncoilable MCA) In a very difficult location. She was put on a “watchful waiting” program. About 2 years ago, when she was 17, there were signs that it was weakening further and might rupture soon. It seems to be a very rare thing, and required specialization not available locally. The family went to New York, to a Dr. Amir Dehdashti.

Among the things that were explained to them at the hospital was that a down-payment of 35 000 $ was expected before they even got to see the doctor.

The operation was successful, otherwise I guess it wouldn’t have made a good human interest story. During the days in New York the family mentions passing an ambulance trying to tend to someone who’d been involved in an accident. The bleeding man did not want to go in the ambulance because he could not afford it. It did make them reflect on how they’d gotten shipped across the world to best specialists, all covered by the Norwegian health care system, while the Americans in the same city could not afford an ambulance.

Which makes me think: If you really need it, the odds of seeing the best specialists in the US are probably better for the average Norwegian than for Joe Average American. Maybe way batter. So the current US system is working quite well for us. Not so much for the nation whose people may have to refuse ambulances when injured, because they can’t afford them"

Well. There is an area of economics called health care economics. Ironically founded by an American, Kenneth Arrow. It is an area where professional health care economics people spends quite a lot of man-hours working on how markets and health care interact.

And they partially agree with you, UltraVires. Things like emergencies, serious illnesses etc is an area where markets break down. It is because of what is known as price elasticity. A measure of how easy it is to refuse a purchase if you find the price too high. If the customer do not have the ability to refuse a purchase, prices will obviously skyrocket. Or at least rise until other mechanisms than the normal supply and demand kick in. Which may happen at stratospheric prices.

Markets tend to work in areas such as Lasik and liposuction, where life and health is not at stake.

Where they disagree though, is that the market would handle all the other aspects of health care would work well under a market. There is a scale from utterly borked to well-functioning, after all.
A health care market does have other problems. For example, there is an extreme asymmetry in information, customer demand is irregular and unpredictable, sellers profit motive is in conflict with his role as caretaker of the patients health, product uncertainty, high barriers to entry, price discrimination and lack of pricing clarity, for health care insurance the customers most in need of the product are the least attractive customers… that is only a partial list of the first health care economics papers list of ways health care does not function like a normal commodity in a market.
Many have been identified since, I think.

The market for healthcare does not function well because it is shot through with intervention after intervention. It could be that a single payer system would be better than the demsoc mess we have now, but that is not what market advocates are defending.

The idea that true free markets wouldn’t provide insurance for emergencies is nonsensical.

[iiandyiiii]

@WillFarnaby

The market for healthcare does not function well because it is shot through with intervention after intervention. It could be that a single payer system would be better than the demsoc mess we have now, but that is not what market advocates are defending.

The idea that true free markets wouldn’t provide insurance for emergencies is nonsensical.

Where is the money in providing emergency health care (or any sort of expensive treatment) to low income people? How could that work from a market perspective?

[WillFarnaby]

@iiandyiiii

Where is the money in providing emergency health care (or any sort of expensive treatment) to low income people? How could that work from a market perspective?

Emergencies are rare and coverage would be inexpensive. Indeed it would be much less expensive than payroll taxes which are shouldered by low income people.

[iiandyiiii]

@WillFarnaby

Emergencies are rare and coverage would be inexpensive. Indeed it would be much less expensive than payroll taxes which are shouldered by low income people.

Maybe emergencies are rare on average, but there are low-income folks out there who get really sick and need very significant treatment quite frequently. What is the free-market solution for them? Why would any insurance company agree to cover someone that they thought likely would need very expensive care very frequently if they had the option to say no?