Quote:
Originally Posted by goober
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.
|
Definitely agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober
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.
|
Again agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober
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.
|
I wonder if it's a natural monopoly and the free market can't break it and perhaps given it's a natural monopoly perhaps the free market shouldn't be allowed near it. The reason I think that is that there would only be the illusion of the benefits of the free market (ie competition leading to lower prices, cost restraints and efficiency and effectiveness) and not the realities.
If it's a natural monopoly then it should be controlled by government.