tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post2350218832989785133..comments2023-10-25T04:06:39.650-06:00Comments on THE UTAH AMICUS: Is “free market health insurance” a nonsense phrase? - Part 2Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15268367840057258095noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post-42160135115249981182007-11-09T11:46:00.000-07:002007-11-09T11:46:00.000-07:00The sound of free market is one of those things th...The sound of free market is one of those things that makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside, but apparently in this world the greed is too thick to make it work. Maybe in another existence or world, but here it is obviously not working. Something different needs done. Maybe we can have a free market, with the exception of health insurance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post-77686633445655772952007-10-22T22:49:00.000-06:002007-10-22T22:49:00.000-06:00Mr. Olsen,Nice straw man you've created and knocke...Mr. Olsen,<BR/><BR/>Nice straw man you've created and knocked down here. You've constructed a scenario where a hybrid system using the best elements of the free market and government welfare for the poorest among us isn't possible. Instead you argue that the only conceivable solutions are either laissez-faire free market free-for-all or absolute nationalization of the health care system with a government bureaucracy administering the rationing of care. What an ugly and unrealistic choice.<BR/><BR/>Held to your strict but fallacious either/or scenario I guess I'd have to agree with Jesse that the free market approach is more likely to serve society successfully. I've worked for enough federal and local departments of government to know that I don't want jokers like me holding complete power over our health care system. I also know enough about history to know that the free market is historically more reliable at creating and allocating goods and capital than any form of government in history. In the few hundred years since the enlightenment capitalism has made starvation, disease, and real poverty the exception in our society rather than the rule. I only have to work a few minutes at my pathetically low paying county job to have the means to pay for a loaf of bread where if I were a typical peasant in the days before Adam Smith's much maligned invisible hand started working its magic I'd spend much of each day working much harder than I do now just so my family and I could barely subsist. <BR/><BR/>I don't buy into your phony either/or argument in this post. I think we do need to improve our nation's health care system but I can't see how that is going to happen without a combination of better use of the market to provide proper incentives to health care customers and wiser government administration of welfare for the poor. I'd love to participate in a serious discussion on how we could make those things happen.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15775127589033724985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post-50288400004127198092007-10-22T22:47:00.000-06:002007-10-22T22:47:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15775127589033724985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post-68361132913953819482007-10-22T14:46:00.000-06:002007-10-22T14:46:00.000-06:00“An economy cannot provide unlimited resources for...“An economy cannot provide unlimited resources for any function lest it bankrupt itself in the process.”<BR/><BR/>An economy can provide for those you can afford it – just look at food as a commodity.<BR/><BR/>“Free market discipline requires denial of access to those who cannot pay.”<BR/><BR/>Duh.<BR/><BR/>“Our society has decided that access to police and fire protection should be universal.”<BR/><BR/>Yes, but only property owners pay for this, so renters and transients use these services for free.<BR/><BR/>“Even conservatives tacitly admitted this when the first thing they did after the terrorist attacks in 2001 was fire the private security firms at our airports and replace them with the Transportation Security Administration”<BR/><BR/>Yes, and look at the outcome...TSA…Thousands standing around<BR/><BR/>“Given this analysis, which paradigm do you think makes the most sense?”<BR/><BR/>What makes the most sense is to leave the system as is – take the profit out of medicine ; you remove the quality – Just look at Canada and the UK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post-63169223113694833092007-10-22T12:41:00.000-06:002007-10-22T12:41:00.000-06:00Because of our "socialistic" government, I'm still...Because of our "socialistic" government, I'm still looking for those black helicopters and UN Tanks to drive in our neighborhoods.<BR/>We can't have "socialized" medicine, but it's ok that government can spy on our privacy. <BR/>I guess that is part of the "free market" world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post-29695287599864905682007-10-22T10:52:00.000-06:002007-10-22T10:52:00.000-06:00Adam Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor falls apart...Adam Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor falls apart when applied to healthcare (and certain other goods and services as well). The idea of the "invisible hand" is that if everyone does what's economically best for them, then that will produce results that are the best for society as a whole. However, if I'm a doctor, the best economic outcome for me is to keep all my patients as sick and unhealthy as possible. Yet this is the exact opposite of what's best for society as a whole. What's best for society is if all my patients are healthy, but this is the worst outcome for me financially. Fortunately, most doctors do their best to keep their patients healthy. But, to the extent that they do, they're working AGAINST their own economic interests. <BR/><BR/>The market is simply not a good fit for healthcare. <BR/><BR/> - lucidityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21680780.post-69050402782388724502007-10-22T08:44:00.000-06:002007-10-22T08:44:00.000-06:00Steve, you did a great job at boiling down the opt...Steve, you did a great job at boiling down the options. I agree: we can either treat health care as a public good or we can truly create a competitive environment that's controlled by the free market. Trying to keep a toe in each pond is why we're in this mess in the first place.<BR/><BR/>It shouldn't be any surprise that I favor the free market approach. If properly regulated to prevent collusion and government-protected monopolies (like our current abusive patent system), we can minimize the number of people without access to adequate care. With a fewer number of "have nots", private charity might have a fighting chance to fill in those small gaps. Heck, most hospitals engage in forgiven hospital bills because they reap tax benefits (not to mention good PR) from the practice.Jesse Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11468928702710912142noreply@blogger.com