> But your system isn't more free. Universal healthcare is obviously the most free system.
Lol. It is more free, as in freedom of the individual market agents to self organize and direct resources without a centralized authority. There is no 'free' lunch, by the way.
> Why would we keep twisting and twisting this market?
If you reread my comment, you may find that I am only suggesting we undo the twisting.
> And where does the strange confidence come from that we just have to tweak it like this and then it'll all work? We have examples of well functioning healthcare systems. They're universal.
As I said, the US generates most of the medicines and techniques used by the smaller countries with touted, socialized healthcare systems. And while some of them work better in small scale countries, they are far from perfect (and note how much worse they get with larger countries, like England).
However, even if we all got free lunch in your socialist utopia, people still die in their seventies and their health-span is typically a fair bit shorter than that, becoming dependent on universal drugs (Medicare) for the last decade of their lives. Why not aim for the best solution? Medicine has a long way to go, and a freer market is the most powerful force to advance it.
>Lol. It is more free, as in freedom of the individual market agents to self organize and direct resources without a centralized authority. There is no 'free' lunch, by the way.
I know which type of free you meant. Marketized healthcare is a system where dollars become freedom-points so some already privileged people have tons of "freedom" and poor people have basically no freedom. Universal healthcare fixes that and gives us all a minimum baseline of freedom which no one can fall under. That's why it's more free.
>If you reread my comment, you may find that I am only suggesting we undo the twisting.
Well no... You're suggesting we twist it in a different way and totally ignoring all the reasons those laws you don't like came to exist in the first place.
>As I said, the US generates most of the medicines and techniques used by the smaller countries with touted, socialized healthcare systems. And while some of them work better in small scale countries, they are far from perfect (and note how much worse they get with larger countries, like England).
Yes and how much of the drugs we create are the result of publically funded research at some point in that pipeline? As well you're basically proposing a system where individuals in my country get gouged so that the rest of the world can get cool stuff for free. You argue against providing people healthcare through the Medi- programs but are find giving the whole world new drugs? Seems sorta like a welfare program to me.
>However, even if we all got free lunch in your socialist utopia
Universal healthcare isn't socialism and nobody thinks it's free. (Although it would be cheaper)
>people still die in their seventies and their health-span is typically a fair bit shorter than that, becoming dependent on universal drugs (Medicare) for the last decade of their lives. Why not aim for the best solution? Medicine has a long way to go, and a freer market is the most powerful force to advance it.
Have you looked at the healthcare stats in countries with universal healthcare programs? Now look at the US. You're just repeating blatant falsehoods. Unplug from Mises.org man.
> Well no... You're suggesting we twist it in a different way and totally ignoring all the reasons those laws you don't like came to exist in the first place.
Desperately disingenuous -- I made it quite clear on each point that the problem is overbearing regulation (not the existence of it outright, but the magnitude). Obviously, there is a such thing as too much regulation or a regulation that doesn't make sense, which you may not fully accept, (I accept there is a such thing as too little, by the way), and the scale is currently very unbalanced on the side of oppressive overregulation in this market.
> Yes and how much of the drugs we create are the result of publically [sic] funded research at some point in that pipeline?
I don't know -- you are very set on this point, so feel free to provide some data (I'm sure you can find one that leans in your favor). But then, the further data of relevance would be how much private vs. public medical research ends up in production.
> Unplug from Mises.org man.
Ad hominem will get you nowhere, but when you make them, you should consider how they may apply to yourself (unplug from WaPo/Vox/etc.). We all struggle to have rational discussions that require us to entertain ideas that our oppose deeply ingrained preconceived notions, and I am no exception to that rule, although I try to be aware of it.
I'll leave you with some thoughts that will hopefully broaden your scope of the issue:
1. Well implemented universal healthcare can be great -- I think Singapore's system, which is universally regarded as one of the best, is very good because it incorporates market-like incentives (for example, everything has an out of pocket expense, no matter how trivial).
2. However, universal healthcare will not solve all of the other problems I described, which other countries' acclaimed universal healthcare systems do not have to deal with. One way or another, we need a fresh start with much of our medical law (especially medical patent length, FDA requirements, and occupational licensing), or we will just be the worst universal healthcare country.
3. This one is the interesting one, which I was talking about in my first comment: The U.S. is the world's major net exporter of medical technology. Foreign dignitaries from UHS countries come to America for their important surgeries. Most of the medical technology used in foreign countries with UHS's came from the US -- it's a confounding variable making them look better, and no one knows what happens to medical progress when we take it away. Public research could offset this, but let's be real: public research does not typically translate to product, especially when your healthcare market is not a real market where you can make money for your value.
> public research does not typically translate to product, especially when your healthcare market is not a real market where you can make money for your value.
Why can't we have a system with dual public/private healthcare, like a medicare for all option for everyone, but with the choice to have other insurance companies?
Lol. It is more free, as in freedom of the individual market agents to self organize and direct resources without a centralized authority. There is no 'free' lunch, by the way.
> Why would we keep twisting and twisting this market?
If you reread my comment, you may find that I am only suggesting we undo the twisting.
> And where does the strange confidence come from that we just have to tweak it like this and then it'll all work? We have examples of well functioning healthcare systems. They're universal.
As I said, the US generates most of the medicines and techniques used by the smaller countries with touted, socialized healthcare systems. And while some of them work better in small scale countries, they are far from perfect (and note how much worse they get with larger countries, like England).
However, even if we all got free lunch in your socialist utopia, people still die in their seventies and their health-span is typically a fair bit shorter than that, becoming dependent on universal drugs (Medicare) for the last decade of their lives. Why not aim for the best solution? Medicine has a long way to go, and a freer market is the most powerful force to advance it.