Conservatives Are Wrong About Free Market Health Care
- 06.18.09
- News, Politics, crisis, free, health care, healthcare, lies, market, medical care, phony, socialized medicine
- 11 Comments
I’m going to keep this short and simple so that everyone gets it. The Health Care system is NOT and CANNOT be a free market system.
Some ‘conservatives’ (read, pro-oligarchy folk) have tried to redefine the term ‘free market’ to mean only one that doesn’t involve “government interference.” I can’t blame them, I guess, everyone wants to make their position sound as good and as reasonable as possible.
It’s false, however.
A free market isn’t just a market lacking government regulation. Here is the ACTUAL definition: A “free market” is a market in which sellers, under no undue pressure to sell, proffer their goods/services to buyers who are under no compulsion to buy. This is critical; change any element of this formula and you are no longer talking about free market.
Health care is not (and cannot become) a free market for two reasons:
1) Supply is artificially restricted by the government and the AMA. The scarcity of medical care drives up the cost. This is completely artificial. You might say “Well, they have to! You can’t have just anyone practicing medicine!” Fine, I agree, but that means that health care CANNOT EVER be a free market, because of the artificial restriction of supply.
2) Not only is supply artificially low, but buyers are under EXTREME compulsion to buy. What, that thought never occurred to you!?!? If you need lifesaving medical care, you either get it or you die! End of story.
No free market exists in health care. And you just agreed in item one that you cannot turn it into a free market.
You could change item 1 by stripping the AMA of its ability to tell medical schools how many doctors they can graduate every year AND letting anyone sell medical services who wants to do so. So then you could choose between the really expensive guy who went to medical school and Joe the Plumber who sells antibiotics out of the back of his truck. This would take care of half the problem.
BUT, you can’t do anything about item 2: People will still need lifesaving care and as long as it is a LIFE OR DEATH NEED, the medical health care system will NEVER follow free market rules.
Sometimes people say, “yeah but we need food, too! And you don’t want the government regulating that.” Food has multiple sources and you can even grow your own, so supply isn’t artificially limited as it is with healthcare. And even so, the government does, in fact, regulate prices through farm subsidies and other methods. We have a cheap food policy in the USA. Some people think that’s bad. Whatever, we need an affordable healthcare policy and it needs to be effective in balancing the artificial (but necessary) limitation on supply.
No free market in healthcare and the people who say they want a free market really don’t (they still want limited doctors, limited medicines, etc.) so what we have is a monopolistic utility, ["monopolistic" because the government & AMA tell you who can provide the services and a "utility" because consumers NEED and are compelled to buy the services from only a few government-approved providers]. As with all monopolistic utilities consumers have no choice except to pay whatever price is demanded.
Now in most other utilities, government as the representatives of the people recognizes the unfair power that the supplier has over the consumer and acts to tightly regulate pricing. For medicine, those with an agenda having NOTHING to do with anyone’s best interest are still trying to pretend that there is some kind of free market solution.
It’s bullshit. When you figure out a way we can all buy medicine from our local supermarket in the same way we buy potato chips AND you figure out a system where people are NEVER compelled to seek medical care to LIVE – THEN and only then will you have free market healthcare.
The rest is all pure phony bullshit spewed by people who only care about profit-taking for the super rich and don’t give a shit about the average person. It’s a fact, and I just proved it!
Some probably-paid talk show callers have been claiming expertise and saying that the problem with health care is that people get too much of it. =The solution, these ersatz listeners claim, is to get rid of medicare and all government price controls and let the “free market” decide. Yes, that’s right, people are dying every day for lack of health care – and America is the ONLY industrialized nation where that happens – and the conservative “solution” is to make health care even more expensive so that you stupid consumers won’t use it as much!!!
Look, those of you who are driven by ideology need to understand that free market rules are a bit like the laws of thermodynamics: Yes, they work – but they apply only in a vacuum, under ideal conditions that seldom exist in real life. You need to blow off the ideology and start looking at reality. We’ll all be better off if you do.
Perfectly stated. I could not agree more.
This is all fine, but…
We are still left with the problem of “no free lunch”. If we use your analogy of a regulated utility, the utility provides services at an agreed to rate that incorporates the costs (raw materials, working capital and long-term capital) plus an agreed to profit margin. You as the consumer are then free to buy as much power as you want at the rate specified. Generally people have some incentive to save money since, even though the rates are regulated, they still have to pay for what they use.
So, how does the analogy hold up in health care? Is there a service cost involved by the “event” (prescription, doctor’s visit, lab work, hospital, etc.)? Does one pay a set fee for any service available? In the first scenario, a person could ration what they use if they cannot afford the cost, but that does not seem smart when your health is involved. In the second scenario, the consumer has no incentive to economize – no matter how much I use I pay the same amount.
The solution that ultimately seems to occur in the second scenario is that the government essentially acts as a utility commission for the consumer, evaluating for them what can be done based on age, diagnosis, etc. A less elegant term for this would be rationing.
So, while I am in agreement with your premise that healthcare is not a complete free market (and there are very few of those anyway using your definition), we are still left with the “no free lunch” problem. The only two solutions are either raising rates or rationing service.
Frankly I am skeptical that any particular ideology has developed an approach that will work. It seems to me that this is an issue that requires a focused study of the problem by all stakeholders over a reasonable period of time to try to develop the best compromise solution (and any solution will be a compromise). But the politics of the situation seems to be that something needs to be passed soon or it will never happen.
Ah well, that’s politics.
Sorry Cranky guy ur article falls apart from the beginning.
“A free market isn’t just a market lacking government regulation”.
This is a false and misleading assumption promoted by the left to paint the picture that conservatives are for no regulation. I’ll challenge anyone to show me with factual verifiable information that conservatives are for no regulation. Can’t be done.
Next – You make the perfect case for why there should never be socialized medicine, govt controlled healthcare, a govt run public option etc.,;
“Supply is artificially restricted by the government and the AMA”
So if that’s the case then why would we ever have a govt run system?
I can go down every paragraph and show you how factually incorrect your statements are but I wont. The above 2 items I’ve cited say it all and are the foundation for your false assumptions.
Let’s try next time to make a valid argument with factual information and not political agenda.
BTW, to the person who asked about the source of my definition of free market.
I was paraphrasing from a business class. In ancient times, I was a Certified Real Estate Appraiser and an understanding of market forces is critical to appraisal. In particular, you need to to know if the market is encumbered by restrictions of supply or other artifices that could affect value.
You should be able to find what you’re looking for in any college economics textbook but for a quickie try Wikipedia:
“In a free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other’s property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments) [1] and they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that it is a good enough choice. In addition, in a free market, force is not used to prevent competition among buyers or among sellers (called free competition). Therefore, force is not a determinant of price, but rather price is the effect of buying and selling decisions en masse as described by the law of supply and demand…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
OH and another btw… snide baiting comments will NOT be posted. This is not a democracy; this is a forum for regular people with real life interests and REAL fucking issues, not a political platform for Libertards and freepers. There are a million sites for that elitist crap. On the other hand, If you have a legitimate point you’d like to make and you can make it in a respectful manner, then our comment will be approved and addressed. . However, you need to have real solutions not just talking points.
On the other hand, if you don’t like what I write and you just want to bluster and parrot your freeper/Free Enterprise Institute/Libertard elitist talking points then you can – in the words of Dick Cheney – go fuck yourself.
This is a critical dividing point: If you don’t really care about human beings, if you want to ignore all the people that the American healthcare system kills every year, start by admitting that up front. Any talking point that doesn’t address how to save all those people is not legitimate in my opinion, because you don’t care about people. HOWEVER, if you are a social Darwinist then this is what you REALLY mean when you are bloviating against universal healthcare. At least have the balls to say what you are! I hate cowards. Of course, this also means that you aren’t a decent human being and there is no reason for me to talk to you. Go fuck yourself.
If you are something OTHER than those things, then we can have a civil discussion. But again, you better have answers and not just complaints.
The argument on our side is that more people are helped by bringing the entire system up to a higher standard. How many people in the world would be “dying every day” without all the drugs and procedures that were developed because of a desire for profit? I believe it is many many. BTW, I receive no wealth or income whatsoever in any way from anything health care related. I DO care about people. A lot. Our argument is how to deliver the most and best healthcare for the most people. You are engaging in mostly ad hominem attacks.
Just saw Sicko for the first time asshole? Cuba has better Healthcare? Then go move there cocksucker!!
[...] truth and common sense, although we seem to be the only blog that told the truth about how health care is NOT and cannot be a free market endeavor. That story was picked up by radio talk show hosts and others interested in the [...]
Liberal are wrong about government health care. There. Now seriously, anyone who is really (yes, really) is favor of a free market cannot possibly be pro-oligarchy. Big business hates the idea of a free market. They couldn’t possibly survive in one. But anyway, no, conservatives have not redefined free market to mean without government interference (most are actually pro-gov when it comes to big business, but that’s another story). That’s what the definition always was (read about it). Moving on, the idea that buying medical services is compulsory is just silly. It isn’t, and the funny thing is you use this idea to justify a compulsory, monopolistic system. Confusion.
Okay, here some reading http://www.reason.com/news/show/34816.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/135127.html. Say yes to free market insurance. “Private” insurance is only really private to extent that government is not running it. Anyway, just my views, don’t need to be upset about it. “Libertards”, “social Darwinists”, right. That’s me.) Seriously though, neither liberal policies nor conservatives policies really work. The idea of using government to “protect” us from big business is silly. They are natural allies. Hopefully I don’t get banned, I really want a genuine discussion here. But your strong ant-libertarian bias is noted. *sighs*. No serious libertarian just wants people to die without health care. Quite the opposite, if you’d actually read more about it. Oh, well. Can’t dictate what you believe.
“Libertarians can have good ideas. I’m pretty sure that the libertarian movement has been hijacked by the same super-rich big business people that have hijacked government, however. Has the fact that libertarian think tanks are funded by billionaires and giant corporations never given you a moment to pause and reconsider?”
You are incorrect. The Ludwig von Mises Institute is one of the largest libertarian think tanks I can think of. They specifically say this on their FAQ page….
“How are you funded?
We are funded by the private donations of individuals, businesses, and foundations. We accept no government funds (yes, the funds have been offered) and we tend to be eschewed by large foundations and corporations (we accept no contract work). However, these strictures place a rather severe limit on our resources and growth potential.”