Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic
But why do you make the assumption that government run solutions aren't as efficient as a free market Goober? I'm not getting at you I'm just arguing that's a nostrum that isn't entirely accurate.
You're right about the monopoly though - if I may say so. And it's a good point and one that has informed my own understanding of our health care system here in Australia.
|
generally the free market reacts quicker than the government and can come up with a more efficient solution to a given problem. But that only happens when there is a free market, with many buyers, many sellers, low barriers to entry, and perfect knowledge of market conditions by market participants.
There is very little of the health care market that can be described as a free market. Consumers have little choice, the typical person getting employer based coverage has a choice of a couple of plans, once they have picked a plan they are usually restricted to list of participating physicians(the supply of which is limited by government licensing), when they need care, their primary care provider refers them participating specialists at participating hospitals.
Drugs that are prescribed are legally obtained only through certain supply channels and at every step the idea of negotiating a better price never enters the picture.
Maybe a free market could provide health care at a lower cost than a national health system, but every national health system provides health care at a lower cost than the enforced monopoly system we currently have in the US.