Free Market
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Considering all healthcare though, you are rarely in a situation where if treatment isn't done immediately, you'll die. So you do have to negotiate prices, etc. of course the current system makes that damn near impossible, but again, unless you're in the ER dieing - you probably have at least weeks if not a hell of a lot longer to get healthcare services, giving you time to decide.
And the government has already put it on all trama centers that they must treat someone in a dire state regardless of financial status.
-
@Dashrender said:
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.
That's an example of where it might work. A good one of when it doesn't is the guy who invested the CRT for televisions. His patent process cost him everything and even though he was one of the most important inventors of the 20th century, they used the patent office to make sure he got nothing, rather than everything. Same for Tesla, for example. Patents were used to keep him from getting paid for his work. Sure, that's all corruption, but the nature of patents means someone external has to make a judgement call about things like "obvious", who was first, etc.
-
In a truly Free-Market healthcare system... any business that makes a product and prices it out of the reach of the majority of the population would risk running themselves out of business, wouldn't they?
-
@Dashrender said:
Considering all healthcare though, you are rarely in a situation where if treatment isn't done immediately, you'll die. S
I'm not sure that that is true. Or more importantly, it's not true when it matters. That you can get a wart removed under negotiation doesn't really matter in the context. What matters is that the important healthcare cannot be negotiated.
When things matter, life threatening, incredible main, loss of decision making capabilities, loss of consciousness... you can't negotiate. Free market requires it all to be free, not just bits here and there. That's like saying all cars are not free for you to choose, but it is a free market because you get to pick the floormats. That's just a distraction.
It's not considered free market when a hospital controls access to emergency services for a region. Sure, you COULD fly to another country for that surgery. And in some cases that is viable, absolutely. But by and large, you need healthcare where you live and there is no free market.
-
Scott - so in your utopian healthcare isn't part of the free market situation, what drives innovation? Who determines how much money a doctor is paid? Who decides how much money is spent on research to make new drugs?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
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.
That's an example of where it might work. A good one of when it doesn't is the guy who invested the CRT for televisions. His patent process cost him everything and even though he was one of the most important inventors of the 20th century, they used the patent office to make sure he got nothing, rather than everything. Same for Tesla, for example. Patents were used to keep him from getting paid for his work. Sure, that's all corruption, but the nature of patents means someone external has to make a judgement call about things like "obvious", who was first, etc.
Are you saying that someone else patented those ideas before the named people did, so the named people were screwed?
-
@dafyre said:
In a truly Free-Market healthcare system... any business that makes a product and prices it out of the reach of the majority of the population would risk running themselves out of business, wouldn't they?
Exactly. If you truly attempted to run a healthcare system like a free market, the prices come down, they don't shoot up.
Still wouldn't make it a true free market, but treating it like one would look nothing like what the US has. More like what India has.
-
@Dashrender said:
Are you saying that someone else patented those ideas before the named people did, so the named people were screwed?
Or used influence to get the patents instead. Edison got Tesla's patents and used the wealth from them to not pay Tesla.
-
@Dashrender said:
Scott - so in your utopian healthcare isn't part of the free market situation....
It's not a utopia. I haven't suggested how things should work. I've only explained that conceptually healthcare is not eligible for a free market system. Plain and simple. Neither is air, for example. It's not suggestive that there is a utopia system, it's simply stating what is.
I'm not sure how that's being missed. I'm not arguing that one system is more free market and another is not. Or that healthcare should or shouldn't be free. I'm saying that free market is a concept that can't be applied to healthcare and that's all that there is to it.
I don't think the US is a utopia, but clearly free market and healthcare have no association there.
-
@Dashrender said:
Who determines how much money a doctor is paid?
That depends on the system that you want to use. Nearly always the government in systems that currently work well.
