Free Market
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller what your missing though is that the doctors may choose to be hired by that person or not.
Nope, not missing that. That doctors have a free market to sell their services is not in question, it is the people's right to get those services that is.
what do you mean people's right to get services? We have no rights to any service, at least not constitutionally.
In a free market you have a right to attempt to get services. To be remotely a free market, that must exist. The situation exists here that people can actually be barred completely from healthcare. That no market would exist at all, free or otherwise.
The right to property is considered a natural law and superseding the Constitution requiring that it not be stated explicitly within it.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I Also now understand why healthcare isn't and can't currently be a free market thing, because it's all controlled tightly by the government.
That's only part of it. Even if the government was not involved at all, it's not eligible for the free market because it is not an optional service in the standard sense of the term.
IE you don't get the doctor that wants to test something out on you versus using the proven method with side effects x, y and z?
No, meaning that healthcare is not like a car. You need healthcare to live, you don't need a car to live. There is no desire to buy healthcare that you don't need, no way to test services and no choices when things are critical. Unless you have the ability to get to any hospital, see any doctor and agree on prices and services before you die or take permanent damage, there is nothing like a free market associated with healthcare.
This isn't about what is or isn't offered. It's about the intrinsic nature of healthcare. This isn't a statement about the US or any current system. It's about free markets and healthcare - the two are not related topics.
-
But the right to receive life saving services exist, why shouldn't the right to receive any service exist?
You might have an infection that causes a constant 10/10 pain, but is otherwise non-life threatening. Should you be barred from receiving care for it, if the fix is to take a pill on a schedule?
Only because you can't afford the medication.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
OK speaking of patents - are you for or against them?
Mostly against and believe that they should, at most, be extremely limited to specific product categories and for extremely limited periods of time and very, very firm in their limits without exceptions. I believe that they should never apply to software or chemicals or other potentially natural things.
Software I completely agree upon, because I believe that the test of 'people that work in that industry would often come to the same conclusion' aka it's obvious.
Would the same be true in chemicals?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
But the right to receive life saving services exist, why shouldn't the right to receive any service exist?
Right to receive but not the right to negotiate the price, who provides it, etc. If you are unconscious or are dying quickly, you must take what is offered. It's not a free market.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
But the right to receive life saving services exist, why shouldn't the right to receive any service exist?
Right to receive but not the right to negotiate the price, who provides it, etc. If you are unconscious or are dying quickly, you must take what is offered. It's not a free market.
Sure it is, you sign a DNR card.
Services declined.
-
@Dashrender said:
Would the same be true in chemicals?
It's a chemical. It just "is" something. Would you let someone patent oxygen? Water? DNA? When would you and when wouldn't you?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Would the same be true in chemicals?
It's a chemical. It just "is" something. Would you let someone patent oxygen? Water? DNA? When would you and when wouldn't you?
You wouldn't allow someone to patent something that is found everywhere. That can be found "in the wild" and without processing.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
But the right to receive life saving services exist, why shouldn't the right to receive any service exist?
Right to receive but not the right to negotiate the price, who provides it, etc. If you are unconscious or are dying quickly, you must take what is offered. It's not a free market.
Sure it is, you sign a DNR card.
Services declined.
No, that's not related. DNR is a declination of healthcare, not a negotiation for needed healthcare. Totally unrelated.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Would the same be true in chemicals?
It's a chemical. It just "is" something. Would you let someone patent oxygen? Water? DNA? When would you and when wouldn't you?
You wouldn't allow someone to patent something that is found everywhere. That can be found "in the wild" and without processing.
But we do currently
How do you prove that nothing coming from pharmas doesn't exist in the wild? Often it does. Or often they find it later. Or they just modify something trivial to say that it doesn't. How does one determine which chemicals exists or are just theoretical? Does a patent dissolve if someone finds it in the wild? It's a slippery slope.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
But the right to receive life saving services exist, why shouldn't the right to receive any service exist?
You might have an infection that causes a constant 10/10 pain, but is otherwise non-life threatening. Should you be barred from receiving care for it, if the fix is to take a pill on a schedule?
Only because you can't afford the medication.
In my free market side approach, YES.
But in Scott's there's no such thing as a free market in healthcare because of regulation if nothing else, then no.
-
One would argue if you're dying, you need healthcare to continue your life, even if you have a DNR card.
So they are in fact the same. A person is declining to receive service because they don't want to continue their life.
How about assisted suicide?
Is this healthcare? A personal who is terminally ill, suffering 24/7 and who would rather die.
-
@Dashrender said:
But in Scott's there's no such thing as a free market in healthcare because of regulation if nothing else, then no.
Not because of regulation. Just intrinsic. Healthcare can't be a free market product as a category.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
One would argue if you're dying, you need healthcare to continue your life, even if you have a DNR card.
How does that relate to the free market, though? You are, in any case, unable to negotiate a deal without your health being at risk. Doesn't matter what perspective you come from, when free markets require the ability to freely decide on products at the time of purchase. Healthcare cannot reliably be handled this way.
Some healthcare can sometimes. Like optional rhinoplasty. That could be a handled as a free market, but is not standard healthcare and does not apply broadly. And could even be argued to not be healthcare.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Would the same be true in chemicals?
It's a chemical. It just "is" something. Would you let someone patent oxygen? Water? DNA? When would you and when wouldn't you?
Why would you then allow anything to be patented? Why is a car different from oxygen? because you made it?
To me it's about the non trivial nature of the item. If the makeup of the molecule is non trivial to those who work in the field, then I'd say they can get a patient (but I love the limits you mentioned).
This reminds me of the pausing windshield wipers. There's a movie about this. A guy invented the way to make this happen. The auto manufacturers had been working on it for years, clearly with those who understand the engineering, etc. The inventor found a non trivial way to accomplish his goal and was granted a patent.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
So they are in fact the same. A person is declining to receive service because they don't want to continue their life.
Still not related because it isn't negotiated at the time. No ability to buy something is not the same as deciding not to buy anything. And while deciding to die is something some people want to do without knowing the situation under which it will happen, it's not considered to be related as your death is the other option and free market options do not result in death.
If you have no free market on cars, that doesn't imply that you couldn't decide to not buy any.
-
@Dashrender said:
Why would you then allow anything to be patented? Why is a car different from oxygen? because you made it?
If those are my choices, I'd pick nothing. But because one is a machine and one is not.
-
I think it's an excellent example of capitalism in action. I also think his actions will get new laws passed.
Unsure where the down side is, other than those now being extorted to live.
-
@Dashrender said:
To me it's about the non trivial nature of the item. If the makeup of the molecule is non trivial to those who work in the field, then I'd say they can get a patient (but I love the limits you mentioned).
Non-trivial machines do not exist in nature. The most complex chemicals exist in nature. It's very different in that regard.
-
@MattSpeller said:
I think it's an excellent example of capitalism in action. I also think his actions will get new laws passed.
Unsure where the down side is, other than those now being extorted to live.
NO. It's an example of capitalism lacking. True capitalism or free market capitalism at least, does not allow for healthcare. It's intrinsically a different thing. The issues with poor healthcare are government incompetence or corruption, not free market running amok. No free market will affect healthcare. It's other factors. That's basically the point of this thread.
