I agree that antibiotic overuse is a real problem. But I don’t feel it’s necessarily one that will occur in other medical issues. Can you give another example of a situation where excessive treatment makes medical problems more resistant? For example, brushing your teeth once a day is a good idea. But if you want to brush your teeth ten times a day, go ahead - you’re not going to cause cavities to develop an immunity to toothpaste. Same thing with taking an aspirin once a day - some people doing it might not really need to but it’s not like they’re breeding a strain of aspirin-resistant headaches.
And think of gasp free water provided by the government in parks. Oh, the reds are at the gates!
I wonder how many choices Shodan had to pick from when he had water turned on in his house. He does live in a conservative fantasy land, doesn’t he?
Actually it isn’t. Since food is so much cheaper, fewer people are priced out of the market. Also, the variance in the cost of food, both over people and over time, is much smaller. You will never face the situation where you will have to pay 100X an average bill one week. Shodan should notice that there is no food insurance, and ask himself why.
But, even with that, a fully free market in food failed. In the mid-60s hunger in America was discovered, and we started socialized food (food stamps) to combat it, which did help quite a bit.
Which, naturally, finds great favor amongst such Trotskyist groups like ADM and Cargill, as it supports their ongoing effort to make the corn plant the dominant life form on our planet.
With the growing and younger appearing diabetes in America, age wont be the only factor. Pre-existing conditions will keep many out of health care in the future. They will be going it alone their whole lives. Obesity of course will be defined as a pre-existing condition too. How much cherry picking can the health care companies do? There will be a narrow slit of the population they will cover. The very healthy and the rich and powerful will get covered. The rest should have nothing at all. They don’t matter.
There is both a semantic & a philosophical disagreement between two schools of thought: Those who believe that in fact extortion, violence, & criminality are part of the “market,” meaning the whole body of human negotiation; & those who believe that the “market” is a human construct of non-violent negotiated activity within a system of law.
I’m one of the former. There will always be black markets. I need not save market forces from “socialism” as they will spontaneously work around all laws & rules.
Some of the latter side do sort of have a good point–those that want there to be a set of legal market activities distinguished from illegal ones. But advocating a “free market” is not necessarily advocating a carefully ethical one, & advocating an ethical market is not necessarily understanding every consequence of market activity.
It is not that difficult to understand why the market system fails so badly for health care. First, we have the fact that the costs vary substantially and unpredictably between people and even for an individual person over time. This makes some sort of insurance necessary. However, the alignment between the interests of the customer and that of the insurer are horrible. The customers who most desire to buy insurance are those who are unwell or likely to become unwell. The customers who the insurance companies want to cover are those who are well and likely to remain well. Admittedly, there is somewhat of a similar story in other types of insurance (auto insurance, homeowner’s insurance in flood-prone or hurricane-prone areas) but we don’t tend to think that people have as much of a basic right to drive a car or leave in a flood plain as we do that they have a right to health care (and, for better or worse, we have ended up subsidizing flood insurance and such anyway). Furthermore, I think the differential in costs for health care between health and severely ill people tend to be extremely large relative to the costs difference between good and bad drivers.
Even where insurers are regulated in some ways not to be able to completely cherrypick who they insure, the lack of alignment still leads to problems: Those who are healthy opt out of insurance (although they still end up getting health care on all of our dime if they do get very sick), leaving the remaining market of people looking for health care weighted toward those who need it the most. This then causes insurance companies to jack up their rates, causing even more of the healthy people to drop or cut back on their health insurance, which then causes the rates to go up even more, which causes even more relatively healthy people to opt out, and so goes the vicious cycle.
There is some investment risk.
What if the robber went cheap and got a little gun, but the “target” sprung for a bigger gun? 
A mugger can premptively shoot his potential victims a lot easier than a victim can premptively shoot every potential mugger.
I didn’t have the choice of hooking my faucets up to the faucets at the local park, if that is what you think you mean.
The reason is that health insurance is not entirely based on the concept of risk management. If it were, Obamacare would cover catastrophic care (like the Republicans suggest) and not routine care.
If they had applied your “logic” to the problem, everyone would have been compelled to get their groceries from the government-supplied food shelves, and paid for it with increased taxes. Since single payer is always so much more efficient.
Regards,
Shodan
Imagine you go into to Burger King and order and pay for a Whopper. They go in the back and find out that your particular Whopper is going to cost $1000 to make. At that point they have an incentive to give you back your $1 and not serve you. Imagine a car company that offers a warranty. They discover that sometimes the gas pedal sticks and there is uncontrolled acceleration. It will cost 100s of millions of dollars to fix all the cars under warranty. Do they have an incentive to hide the fact that this is occurring?
No, I meant that several water companies were not bidding for your business. So, there is no free market in water - we are pretty much at the mercy of the government - and it works pretty well. Well enough that it can be given away free in many places.
Risk management doesn’t only cover the case of catastrophes. In any case, even today insurance companies cover routine care and preventative care at 100% quite often, since they know it saves them money in the long run. Not covering routine care in a public system would increase the instances where catastrophic care is needed. Plus, what constitutes a “catastrophic” cost varies wildly across income groups. Those that have win twice by being able to handle the risk of a higher deductible for a lower premium. Poorer people might not be able to take that risk.
Do you not understand the concept of variance, or are you just ignoring the point for the sake of your sound bite? I’ll repeat - the situations are different because no one is ever going to get hit with a gigantic food bill, and because food cost will never be that major part of a budget, and can be planned for well in advance. Thus, no food insurance. In the cases where they do make up a large part of a budget, we have government assistance.