Actually, poorly regulated markets work poorly, and more heavily regulated ones work better, See the US versus the German system for example.
Otherwise I refer you to the entire body of health care economics work and all the real-world experience. The Handbook of Health Economics by Culyer and Newhouse might be a good start.
It boggles the mind that medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy since the free market has been providing these inexpensive catastrophic health care plans that you speak of.
The free market solution would be for them to receive voluntary aid in charitable contributions. If they were decent members of society, there would be plenty forthcoming. If they were antisocial, probably not much but still some.
So you think I’m defending poorly regulated markets? That’s your mistake.
Free market? In healthcare? IN THE USA?
Is there ANYTHING that can’t be blamed on regulation? OK, some other country then that has these low cost catastrophic plans that are working well for low income people? Or is this another libertopian fantasy?
This sounds like a hope and a prayer, not a solution. Especially with bigotry so endemic to our society – if someone belongs to a race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., that their neighbors generally find inferior or otherwise less acceptable, then there seems little chance of such charity being offered. Some of us would prefer some sort of government policy backstop that ensures such folks get treatment that does not rely on the moods and feelings of their neighbors.
But at least we’ve gotten to the bottom of this particular aspect of the issue.
Voluntary aid is not a market feature. Giving stuff away without recompense is not how markets function. That this is considered necessary is rather an indication that market failure has occurred.
I don’t think so. Which markets do you think is more regulated in healthcare, the US, Norway, or Germany ? Which market do you think work better?
You’re basically trying to substitute the expression “poorly regulated” for “underregulated”
So bigotry is mitigated by forcing members of the hating group to pay for healthcare of the hated group.
Unfortunately your solutions thus far have a disintegrating effect on civil society.
So regulation is about quantity, not quality. How do you meadure it? Gross tonnage or volume?
The effects of this particular type of bigotry are mitigated with the proposed solution, yes. Seems better than just hoping they’ll chip in for health care for people they hate.
IMO your solution would do far, far more damage to civil society than mine.
Well, you could probably make a GD thread on that subject alone. But I’d say coverage. National standards for nurses, physicians, etc. National legislation stating that you have a right to all medically necessary healthcare. Or legislation that mean people don’t fall between the cracks in a Krankenkasse system. Standards for institutions that graduate health care workers. Etc, etc.
Ocasio-Cortez Team Flubs a Green New Deal Summary, and Republicans Pounce
“Trump Team Flubs Policy Rollout, and Democrats Pounce”
-Headline you will never see in the NYT
I can’t tell if you’re trying to argue that the NYT is too harsh towards Trump, or not harsh enough.
They wouldn’t include anything at all about the Democrats’ reaction, or refer to it as a “flub”. There’s a charitable concession on their part toward AOC in the whole affair that would never be afforded to the current administration.
Imagine an article explaining how Trump simply flubbed a policy rollout, how Democrats pounced on a flub, and explained how it was simply a flub. It would never happen. Instead, they’d skewer his purported dishonesty.
At least half of the attention Ms OAC gets is the shrill cries of tighty-rightys rolling on the carpet and tearing their hair. From my position on the conservative wing of the extreme left, what I like most about her is her zest and enthusiasm.
Is she dumber or more extreme that Louis Gohmert. Love to test that first part, give them each a thousand bucks to play with, and sit them both down to a table with a deck of cards or a checkerboard, and may the best person win. We already know what would happen, only question would be how long it take.
And Hell, in the House, a gust of air off the streets of Brooklyn qualifies as “fresh”.
I don’t understand why your side resorts to these strawman arguments. Being in favor of capitalism does not mean privatizing police forces. Being for lower taxes and less government spending does not mean that we don’t want spending on roads.
These basic functions have become government functions for a variety of reasons, probably most importantly the inability to exclude non-payers. We cannot have a private company put up street lights on my street because if I refuse to pay, there is no remedy. You cannot blindfold me at night or refuse to allow me to drive on the roads, bar nighttime delivery to my house, or prevent my guests from coming over.
We cannot have a private military for the same reason. We protect the boarders, but oh, UltraVires didn’t pay, so we will let those Russians come in so long as they only sack his house.
For healthcare, there is no reason it cannot be treated like food where competition and consumer selection, along with modest government regulation, can efficiently allocate scarce resources to those who need it. And before you say, well, we all need it, we don’t all need the same thing, which is my objection with using the broad category of healthcare and regulating it all the same.
It’s not a strawman argument. It’s a genuine desire to understand why, in your view, certain services/functions can and should be socialized while others should not.
The thing is, we’re generally in agreement on most services and functions (even with AOC and Bernie!) – we all agree that firefighting, police, etc., should be socialized, while most currently capitalist industries should remain non-socialized, though we might disagree on the extent of some regulations. The disagreement is on a handful of important industries – most notably, health care.
This first sentence continues a straw man that you’ve used earlier – that AOC, Bernie, or other Democrats/liberals/progressives in favor of various versions of public-funded health care are not “in favor of capitalism”. I’m in favor of capitalism, just not on every single service and function. Same as you. The difference is just, as I said before, in a small number of industries/services/functions. And there are, in fact, people in favor of privatizing road maintenance, firefighting, food/drug safety, and many more currently socialized functions and services.
I’m happy to stop asking these questions when you stop saying or implying that those in favor of medicare-for-all or other government-involved universal health care are against capitalism.
Capitalism is great, in general. That’s not in conflict with proposals for medicare-for-all, or other universal health care systems.
OK, first off: Things like the military, police, universal healthcare, free college, guaranteed minimum pensions etc are not socialism. They are social programs. Thats **not **the same as socialism, any more than having social skills means you are a socialist.
The word “social” can in fact be used in many ways, and is not limited to socialism.
Social spending can happen in socialist countries (like Cuba) and it can happen in very capitalist ones. (Like Scandinavia). Generally it works much better if you have a really capitalist economy for an engine.
Socialism is an economic system, not a set of social policies.
I’ve actually listed quite a few reasons why further upthread:
For example, Your doctor has spent six years gathering specialist information about a very, very broad and complex subject. He knows much much more about this than the average patient. He is in a position where he is the seller of treatments while at the same time being responsible for your treatments being evidence-based and appropriate, and not excessive. It is very difficult to become a doctor.
All these things make him different from your grocer.
And it means that his work behaves differently in a marketplace. And that is just the beginning of the differences.
You’ve covered roads and military, and I disagree on roads. I would also not that throughout the majority of history of humanity, you were not protected by the military, you were the military. Remember militias and the second amendment? That was because the early country could not guarantee the safety of it citizens through means of force. It is a very recent and pretty socialistic thing that we have a large standing army with no draft.
There is no reason that the road outside your home would not be a toll road. You would have to pay to come to or to leave your house, it would charge any delivery drivers, as well as your friends.
We do not need streetlights. If you want light in front of your house, you can install a light in your front yard. I’ve only spent a brief period of time living in a place with public streetlights, so they do not make a good example of any sort of universal truth.
Fire, police, food and drug safety, and education are all things that the free market could provide.
If you don’t pay your police protection, then you don’t get to report crimes, and crimes against you will not be prosecuted.
If you don’t pay your fire protection, then if your house is on fire, the firefighters will only be concerned with making sure it doesn’t spread to homes that did pay up.
If you want safe food and drugs, then there will be a private company that will rate and ensure that what you are ingesting is safe. If you don’t pay to subscribe to their newsletter, then you don’t get to know about recalls due to salmonella contamination.
It is very easy to exclude non-payers for those services. We just find the consequences of doing so to be much more costly than just paying for everyone to be covered by those services.
Given the relative states of healthcare between private and public systems, it does seem as though healthcare is one more thing that can be exuded to non-payers, but it is much less costly to everyone to just cover everyone.
The key to actually understanding economics is to: 1) build your model (which you have done here), and then 2) compare your model to the real world to see the ways in which your model is inaccurate (and therefore if your model needs to be amended).
You’ve done the first part, but not the second part. For example, if your model predicts good outcomes from “modestly regulated” healthcare, but you look around the world and see that no wealthy country anywhere has implemented “modestly regulated” healthcare, then that should tell you that there’s a problem with your model. (It’s common to think, “well, then the real world is wrong,” but that way lies Libertarianism, and madness).
By the way, your examples of military and street lights both invoke the concept of “externalities”. I.e., you are saying the free market for those goods doesn’t function well because of the externalities. You should be aware that the market for healthcare also has externalities.
We have been trying this for decades, and the results are a mixture of extremely high costs leading to half a million bankruptcies annually, and 20-something million people without insurance.
You can’t say the same thing about food. Yes, there are hungry people in the U.S., but it doesn’t take someone with specialized training to deliver a meal, who will then bill someone (either the hungry person or the local government) a couple hundred dollars for 25 minutes of work. Further, usually people don’t end up in dire straits one day needing $100,000 worth of vegetables or they will die.