# Reframing "socialism" into "natural human rights" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2020, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789 "2020-03-02T15:19:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/121 "2020-03-04T21:33:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Since third parties are paying for most medical services, the AMA gets to set the prices. Cite? > [@](#): > > What? Marketing is what every business does to try to sell their product. If it didn’t bring in more money than what the costs of marketing was, they wouldn’t do it. They aren’t pissing money away anymore than Ford is by trying to sell me a car. And R&D is needed to have a product to sell. So if drug prices come down, why do you leap to the assertion that R&D is the the thing that will suffer the most? Also, aren’t you bothered by the fact that we are subsidizing the cheap drug prices around the rest of the world by paying so much more for the same stuff? Imagine if a Ford F-150 cost $50,000 here, but the exact same truck in Canada cost $15,000. Wouldn’t you be a liiiiiiiiittle pissed at Ford for giving you a raw deal? > [@](#): > > People pool money for possible, yet unlikely risks that would be financially devastating to them if it occurred. Some peoples’ homes burn down. Certainly not everyone and not close to everyone. If my home burned down, I could not afford to rebuild it. So, me and my neighbors all pool a little bit of money together and the handful of people whose homes burn down use that pot of money to rebuild. > > As I have no use for contraception or mammography, it is unclear what I risk I am pooling against. The risk is pooled, in the same way that women pay for the risk of developing erectile dysfunction, and you pay for coverage of, say, genetic diseases that you will never contract. > [@](#): > > And it is silly for women to risk pool against known events, no more than a driver should have car insurance which provides for gasoline and oil changes. Man, it’s really weird to hear men talk about women needing to plan children like oil changes. Jesus Christ, dude. Jesus Fucking Christ. > [@](#): > > Nobody has tried it because it is politically impossible. We could at least start by making our public schools like these private and charter schools that parents are lining up to get their kids enrolled in. But nope, government and teachers unions fight it all the way. So there is no system in the world that you can say is better than the U.S. public education system, which you assert is terrible? And I don’t know why you think charter schools are good. [Many of them are terrible, and basically scams.](https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/where-are-these-kids-going-to-go-43-dc-charter-schools-have-been-closed-since-2009-this-one-is-next/65-7dde2862-2da2-4c29-863b-6c04acf688d7) > [@](#): > > Bah. That’s hyperbole. Sure you can have a law against buying $10k worth of oxycodone, but why prohibit it in small medical amounts without an expert? I can suck down a half gallon of whiskey a day without government nanny state supervision, why can’t I treat a medical condition? I didn’t expect someone from West Virginia to defend freely available opiates. That’s very libertarian of you, but I think it is an awful idea. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/122 "2020-03-04T21:43:12Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If I was paying out of pocket, and had five doctors in town and two hospitals and I could look on their website to compare prices, do you think prices would come down, regardless of what the AMA says? I sure do. You can think anything you want. It’s a free country. But there’s no reason to think what you say is true. You can’t remove government regulation from something that doesn’t have any government regulation. The AMA isn’t some government agency. It’s a private organization set up by doctors. And doctors know that by working together they can set high prices and they’ll all make more money. They’ve been doing this for years and it’s working well for them. I don’t why you imagine they would choose to stop doing it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/123 "2020-03-04T21:44:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Well, then, just to clear up that point, let me go on record as saying that I feel a public healthcare system should be paid for via taxation. I would oppose the idea of people taking money directly from other people. Imagine the following two scenarios: 1. I take money from you directly and threaten to lock you in my garage unless you give it to me. 2. I have my friend Dave take money from you and threaten to lock you in his garage unless you give it to Dave, who then gives part of your money to me. Is #2 better, or really, in any way different than #1? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/124 "2020-03-04T21:50:17Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I’m about 90% sure that the AMA doesn’t have anything to do with setting the price of health care. Good news. You’re about 10% right. You can look it up. The full name is the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee. But it’s commonly called just the Relative Value Update Committee or the RUC. You can find it on the AMA website, although obviously they’re going to put a positive spin on it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/125 "2020-03-04T21:56:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Imagine the following two scenarios: > > 1. I take money from you directly and threaten to lock you in my garage unless you give it to me. > > 2. I have my friend Dave take money from you and threaten to lock you in his garage unless you give it to Dave, who then gives part of your money to me. > > Is #2 better, or really, in any way different than #1? No, they’re both stealing. Now here’s my scenario. 1. We have a government run by representatives that we elect. That government enacts programs and then pays for them by taxing people. Paying taxes is compulsory. Do you feel that #3 is the equivalent of #1 or #2? Do you think taxation is theft? To be fair about this, I’ll go on record and say I do not. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/126 "2020-03-04T22:05:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think this is an opinion that is unsupported by the facts. > > Systems in other countries that are directly run by the government are providing better quality healthcare at lower costs. Meanwhile the American healthcare system is producing huge profits for private healthcare providers. > > So the problem with high costs seems to be that we don’t have enough government control, not too much of it. And we have a million industries in the United States that operate under free market principles that are vastly superior that government owned or paid for ones. Why is health care so different that it cannot operate under free market principles? Who cares that providers make “huge profits”? Jeff Bezos makes huge profits from Amazon yet he provides a magnificent service which has greatly benefitted many people. Microsoft makes “huge profits” yet provides quality operating systems and software for millions of businesses and individuals. Grocery stores make huge profits. The housing industry makes huge profits. Why only in health care are profits something that needs to be eliminated? > [@Ravenman](#): > > Cite? Every other industry that flourishes in a free market > [@Ravenman](#): > > And R&D is needed to have a product to sell. So if drug prices come down, why do you leap to the assertion that R&D is the the thing that will suffer the most? Also, aren’t you bothered by the fact that we are subsidizing the cheap drug prices around the rest of the world by paying so much more for the same stuff? Imagine if a Ford F-150 cost $50,000 here, but the exact same truck in Canada cost $15,000. Wouldn’t you be a liiiiiiiiittle pissed at Ford for giving you a raw deal? It’s simple economics. If I can make $10 million on something, I might spend $1 million to do it. If I can make $1 million on something, I might only spend $100k to do it. And it doesn’t matter if I am so pissed off that I am beating holes in my wall. The fact is that drugs will not be developed if a company does not invest in research to discover them. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The risk is pooled, in the same way that women pay for the risk of developing erectile dysfunction, and you pay for coverage of, say, genetic diseases that you will never contract. It is a poor pool because the risks are not similar. You are overcharging one group to subsidize another. But, this is peanuts and it probably a wash for most families so I will drop it. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Man, it’s really weird to hear men talk about women needing to plan children like oil changes. Jesus Christ, dude. Jesus Fucking Christ. Come on now. That’s just a cheap shot. You know very goddamn well I wasn’t saying that children are like oil changes. You perfectly understood the point I was making that it is ridiculous to “insure” against known occurrences. Women will need to use contraception. You will need oil changes in your car. You will need to visit your doctor. You will need to change a light bulb. You don’t insure against things that definitely will happen. That is not what insurance is for. > [@Ravenman](#): > > So there is no system in the world that you can say is better than the U.S. public education system, which you assert is terrible? > > And I don’t know why you think charter schools are good. [Many of them are terrible, and basically scams.](https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/where-are-these-kids-going-to-go-43-dc-charter-schools-have-been-closed-since-2009-this-one-is-next/65-7dde2862-2da2-4c29-863b-6c04acf688d7) This is getting into hijack territory, but I will just say that because something is at level X doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be at X+Y. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I didn’t expect someone from West Virginia to defend freely available opiates. That’s very libertarian of you, but I think it is an awful idea. Again, this is getting into hijack territory, but people in West Virginia don’t seem to have a problem getting opiates regardless of the law. I know because I represent them. 🙂 But regardless of drug policy, it introduces an inefficiency in providing health care. If I have chronic back pain, it is an external cost to make me take time off of work, sit in a doctor’s waiting room, walk back and get my weight and blood pressure taken, and sit on that paper covered examination chair so that the doctor can come in and write another script for the same opioids I have taken for the past ten years. Then I get to pay a $20 copay which the insurance (or under UHC, the government) pays an additional $65 on top of, to tell me something I already knew. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/127 "2020-03-04T22:10:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, they’re both stealing. > > Now here’s my scenario. > > 1. We have a government run by representatives that we elect. That government enacts programs and then pays for them by taxing people. Paying taxes is compulsory. > > Do you feel that #3 is the equivalent of #1 or #2? Do you think taxation is theft? > > To be fair about this, I’ll go on record and say I do not. I do not believe taxation is theft. As I said before, if the democratically elected government decides to use tax dollars for social programs, then that is what democracy is about. When it changes, and keeping with the OP, and becomes a “right” of an individual citizen to have healthcare, then it is indeed theft. We have then created a society where we can no longer choose to provide charity; we must take from one and give to the other. That will be a foundational principle like free speech or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is outside the democratic process. It is theft as a matter of foundational origin. It is a declaration by society that your money is not yours but for the benefit of the community. Or, socialism. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/128 "2020-03-04T22:21:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re already past this question – the free market is totally failing to deliver good health care to all Americans. Millions get bad health care or none at all, and millions more risk bankruptcy or insolvency due to health care costs. You can ask “why” if you want, but I’m more interested in actually fixing the system, using the knowledge we have in systems around the world which vary in quality. > > So we already know how the free market does it – it sucks. Sucks really bad. And we can look at other countries to see how various levels of government control and involvement do – and they do a lot better. So that’s all I’m suggesting – we recognize that our system is really bad, and we copy those systems around the world that do things much better. See, this is a great demonstration of the vast amount of ignorance on both sides. Or, if not ignorance, than deliberate misinformation designed to trick or hide. I’ll go with the former. There is no free market for healthcare in the US. There never has been, and never will be. So, the free market isn’t failing to deliver anything wrt healthcare in the US. I think the ‘why’ IS a very good question, to be honest, and your attempt to just brush that aside is interesting. The ‘free market’ doesn’t ‘suck’, bad or otherwise. This isn’t a market issue wrt healthcare in the US. Our system is neither fish nor fowl…it’s not a free market system nor is it a government run system, it’s a kluged together mess that has aspects of a taxed based government run system and a series of regional monopolies run by quasi-private corporations using government mandates and good old boy networks along with a century of healthcare baggage, political changes in direction and out of date crap tossed in. Trying to say it’s a ‘free market’ system is about as accurate as calling what the Europeans, say, have for health care (as if THAT is some sort of unified thing either) ‘socialist’. It’s just wrong. And it’s misleading. Instead of trying to misidentify our system as ‘free market’ and then making the silly claim that this proves markets suck, blah blah blah, why not attack the real issues with the system? I mean, I’m sure you are good with rolling your eyes when various conservative types try and label a single payer or universal health care system as ‘socialist’ and blast it based on that alone, right? There are a lot…and I mean a LOT…of real issues with our cobbled together mishmash of a health care system. But it’s not because markets suck, or some other trite anti-capitalist horseshit. It’s because the system evolved over time, has had so many cooks stirring the pot that we can’t even keep track of them all, has been jerked around by various political movements that themselves have changed over time, and ultimately wasn’t designed to do what we need it to do now in the first place, but instead designed to fix issues that were happening almost a hundred years ago. Focus on THAT, instead of this other bullshit. Just like conservative types (though, ironically, doesn’t seem limited to them) shouldn’t try and hand wave single payer systems simply because they are ‘socialist’. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/129 "2020-03-04T22:29:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If every patient was Medicare or Medicaid, no doctor could survive at those reimbursement levels. Cite? Most of the patients where I work are on original Medicare-B. For the most part, the rates are solid. The AMA and specialty board has our back when negotiating rates through the RUC, that’s why we pay dues. Most of the no-name insurance startups forgo a fee schedule and pay a single-digit percentage over the Medicare rate. Even better, original Medicare doesn’t do authorizations. If it’s on the fee schedule, or if it has an NDC/LDC (national/local guidelines), it is safe to assume the procedure or treatment is covered. Very straightforward, easy to work with, so long as the rates are okay, which they usually are. Medicaid rates are a joke, though. Accepting Medicaid is taking a loss for the betterment of society. We are the only office of our specialty with open panels that accepts all of the Medicaid plans in… well, an embarrassingly large chunk of Florida. We don’t even get the advantage of dealing with one insurer - Medicaid is privatized here in Florida and there are like, five different payors, each with different rules and different provider networks. We run into problems when it comes to prescription drug coverage and Medicare advantage plans. These sorts of things often require “prior authorization” - we, the doctors, have to ask the insurer before we can provide treatment. Problem: we cannot bill the insurer for time spent asking them to approve doctor’s orders. So when it comes to things that the insurance company gives us a hassle about, sometimes we can lose money even though we are being paid at Medicare rates, because of the extra time and resources spent jumping through hoops. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/130 "2020-03-04T22:55:04Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Every other industry that flourishes in a free market. I asked for a cite for your assertion that the American Medical Association sets prices for medical care. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/131 "2020-03-04T22:56:06Z")
> [@XT](#): > > See, this is a great demonstration of the vast amount of ignorance on both sides. Or, if not ignorance, than deliberate misinformation designed to trick or hide. I’ll go with the former. There is no free market for healthcare in the US. There never has been, and never will be. So, the free market isn’t failing to deliver anything wrt healthcare in the US. I think the ‘why’ IS a very good question, to be honest, and your attempt to just brush that aside is interesting. > > The ‘free market’ doesn’t ‘suck’, bad or otherwise. This isn’t a market issue wrt healthcare in the US. Our system is neither fish nor fowl…it’s not a free market system nor is it a government run system, it’s a kluged together mess that has aspects of a taxed based government run system and a series of regional monopolies run by quasi-private corporations using government mandates and good old boy networks along with a century of healthcare baggage, political changes in direction and out of date crap tossed in. Trying to say it’s a ‘free market’ system is about as accurate as calling what the Europeans, say, have for health care (as if THAT is some sort of unified thing either) ‘socialist’. It’s just wrong. And it’s misleading. > > Instead of trying to misidentify our system as ‘free market’ and then making the silly claim that this proves markets suck, blah blah blah, why not attack the real issues with the system? I mean, I’m sure you are good with rolling your eyes when various conservative types try and label a single payer or universal health care system as ‘socialist’ and blast it based on that alone, right? There are a lot…and I mean a LOT…of real issues with our cobbled together mishmash of a health care system. But it’s not because markets suck, or some other trite anti-capitalist horseshit. It’s because the system evolved over time, has had so many cooks stirring the pot that we can’t even keep track of them all, has been jerked around by various political movements that themselves have changed over time, and ultimately wasn’t designed to do what we need it to do now in the first place, but instead designed to fix issues that were happening almost a hundred years ago. Focus on THAT, instead of this other bullshit. Just like conservative types (though, ironically, doesn’t seem limited to them) shouldn’t try and hand wave single payer systems simply because they are ‘socialist’. We know the free market fails for health care – we have lots of history to show this (for most of our history we had a mostly-pure “free market” health care system). This is because _some people’s health needs are not profitable to treat_, period. Some folks can’t be made a profit on in terms of health care. As long as people like that exist, the free market can’t solve health care, at least unless you’re willing to cut such people loose and doom them to short and miserable lives. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/132 "2020-03-04T22:58:15Z")
There are folks out there with chronic conditions who go to the hospital multiple times per year, and have to see their doctor for non-trivial treatment multiple times per month. Unless they happen to be billionaires, there is no market incentive to treat such folks. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/133 "2020-03-04T22:59:05Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think all posters here agree that capitalism generally works better. I don’t think we have command control communists here. So since we agree on the general principle, what is unique about health care delivery that would make health care an exception to the general rule? > > Because it is a necessity and people will die without it? Why not have a National Food Insurance Program where you go to the store and pick out what your family needs and it is all government paid for through taxation? Or why doesn’t the government provide a house for every person, fully paid through taxes, you know, to cut out the “middle man”-- those real estate agents and their inefficient profit making? > > All of the things typically mentioned—police, fire, roads, street lights, etc. have unique circumstances where it is impossible or at least impractical to have a privately provided system. > > Another poster opined that in health care, you never know how much you will need and when you will need it. I never know when my house will burn down, when the engine will blow up in my car, or when some drunk without insurance will crash into me. None of those circumstances demand a top down government approach. > > To answer your question, though, it would “work” in the sense that all government programs work—mediocre, slow shitty service, a thousand forms, and inefficient resource allocation. As we agree generally, why not let the free market provide a better service? What is the constraint that prevents it? That’s all super cool, but are you going to answer the question I asked? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/134 "2020-03-04T23:24:00Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I do not believe taxation is theft. As I said before, if the democratically elected government decides to use tax dollars for social programs, then that is what democracy is about. > > When it changes, and keeping with the OP, and becomes a “right” of an individual citizen to have healthcare, then it is indeed theft. We have then created a society where we can no longer choose to provide charity; we must take from one and give to the other. That will be a foundational principle like free speech or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is outside the democratic process. > > It is theft as a matter of foundational origin. It is a declaration by society that your money is not yours but for the benefit of the community. Or, socialism. Are public defenders funded by theft? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/135 "2020-03-04T23:36:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Are public defenders funded by theft? Touche. That is a very good point. I mean that. Let me think on it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/136 "2020-03-04T23:37:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s all super cool, but are you going to answer the question I asked? I thought I did. The last paragraph you quoted. It would “work” for a very modest definition of work. People would get health care. But for the reasons that other markets provide better goods and services, we should get better health care by allowing free markets to work. Why can’t free markets work in health care? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/137 "2020-03-04T23:40:41Z")
> [@XT](#): > > See, this is a great demonstration of the vast amount of ignorance on both sides. Or, if not ignorance, than deliberate misinformation designed to trick or hide. I’ll go with the former. There is no free market for healthcare in the US. There never has been, and never will be. So, the free market isn’t failing to deliver anything wrt healthcare in the US. I think the ‘why’ IS a very good question, to be honest, and your attempt to just brush that aside is interesting. > > The ‘free market’ doesn’t ‘suck’, bad or otherwise. This isn’t a market issue wrt healthcare in the US. Our system is neither fish nor fowl…it’s not a free market system nor is it a government run system, it’s a kluged together mess that has aspects of a taxed based government run system and a series of regional monopolies run by quasi-private corporations using government mandates and good old boy networks along with a century of healthcare baggage, political changes in direction and out of date crap tossed in. Trying to say it’s a ‘free market’ system is about as accurate as calling what the Europeans, say, have for health care (as if THAT is some sort of unified thing either) ‘socialist’. It’s just wrong. And it’s misleading. What you say is partly correct but IMHO is itself misleading. When conservatives criticize single-payer as “socialist”, the implication is that the government is vastly overreaching into an important aspect of our lives in a way that will be detrimental and excessively bureaucratic, which is the exact opposite of the truth, but they irrelevantly cite the failure of socialist economic systems as evidence. This is also often closely associated with the claim that if any aspect of health care is “socialized”, it’s a slippery slope that will lead to the socialization of many other things. The AMA stated that it was “a definite step toward either communism or totalitarianism” and in the early 60s Ronald Reagan was part of a Republican-driven campaign to stop the passage of Medicare, saying that if it was passed, “one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [Cite](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/operation-coffeecup-reaga_b_45444). Whereas referring to the present health care system as “free market” is just a short-hand way of saying that a major part of health care coverage for medically necessary procedures in the US is provided by private for-profit corporations, as compared, say, with zero in Canada, and that most health care providers are for-profit individuals or enterprises. Most importantly, it implies that the quality of health care you get in the US is pretty closely aligned with your ability to pay, in the time-honored free-market tradition of a rich person having, say, a high-end new car while a poor person drives a beater or has no car at all. And irrespective of some of the irrational factors that you describe, basing health care coverage for most Americans on private corporations is both directly and indirectly responsible for most of America’s health care woes, because treating coverage of medically necessary procedures as a business is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose and ethics of health care. In short, referring to single-payer (or often any form of UHC) as “socialist” is an old conservative scare tactic that goes back decades, whereas referring to it as a “free market” reflects a fundamental truth about how the model basically works, even if there are exceptions and many screwed-up policies. If you prefer, it could be said to be “modeled on basic free-market principles”, most importantly the great capitalist tradition that you only get what you pay for. Not only do millions of Americans not get the health care they need for just this reason, but according to [Families USA](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323087/), between 2000 to 2006 an estimated 162,700 Americans actually died because of lack of health insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/138 "2020-03-04T23:44:59Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I thought I did. The last paragraph you quoted. It would “work” for a very modest definition of work. People would get health care. But for the reasons that other markets provide better goods and services, we should get better health care by allowing free markets to work. Why can’t free markets work in health care? My question was in response to this: > [@you](#): > > The United States is not Sweden or even Canada. Saying that it works in those countries doesn’t necessarily mean it will work here. If it works in Sweden or Canada, why would it not work here? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/139 "2020-03-04T23:45:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Are public defenders funded by theft? Ok, here’s the difference. When the state accuses you of a crime, they are attempting to take away your liberty. That is an affirmative action against you. In order to do that, it is only fair (if you are poor) that the same state, including the taxpayers in it, fund a reasonable defense so that you can rebut the charges. It really isn’t 100% for the benefit of the defendant. It is not in the state’s interests to incarcerate innocent people, and without a public defender, the state may well do so due to the defendant’s ignorance or indigence. If we contrast that with health care, the state is not responsible for making a person sick, so no corresponding duty arises. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/140 "2020-03-04T23:49:49Z")
If the market controls health care, there will always be the incentive to deny treatment to the needy, because such treatment costs the insurance companies money. And most needy folks won’t have the resources to go toe-to-toe with the insurance companies, or the resources to pay doctors directly. That’s what the profit motive does – it motivates the denial of treatment. Take the profit motive out of necessary medical care and there’s no more motive to deny treatment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789.md?page=8)