Leadified said:
SlayerRondo said:
Leadified said:
SlayerRondo said:
Anyone who thinks that there has been anything resembeling 'free market' in health care has been drinking too much koch.
If there were more competition from reducing regulatory burdens, people actually investigating their insurance companies reputation and reading their insurance contracts and asking questions their would be considerably better healthcare.
And Mexico's health care system is even close to that of the United states and is an absurd comparison without anu basis at all.
|
The issue with the free market is the same issue with communism: it doesn't work. Both assume perfect and utopian scenarios, such as people will not be greedy, people would be educated about they are acutally getting into and would be apart of it, and a small group of people do not control a large chunk of the wealth in society. The reality is a free market would solve nothing, current insurance companies would just become stronger and because they control a monopoly not only would there be no chance for any new competiion but they would just have more power to do whatever they want.
|
Utopia does not exist and few supporting the free market make such claims. And the free market absolutely does not assume that people will not be greedy, it relies on the fact that they will be. The free market allows for greedy people to satisfy their wants by first satisfying the wants of the people. Government on the other hand allows for greedy people unfair advantages to keep out competitors with over regulation and subsidize their inferior products/services. And yes few people educate themselves in their health care privider because its not a luxury and therefore boring and not worth their time. But we need to eliminate the attitude that people take with boring but important decisions in society so that competition will florish between insurance companies.
Your claim that the free market will solve nothing is completely baseless.
|
BOLDED: This is exactly why it is a utopian idea. The solutions you provided are idealist and have no base. Greedy people will never help the poor in any system ever, that's why they are greedy in the first place. Besides, the rich tend to stick to each other and their own business, very few acutally get involved. You also failed to provide on how competition will florish in a monopoly without having to do large scale redistrubtion of wealth.
My claim still stands =).
|
An environment where competition is more intense allows more easily for new entrants into the market allowing for new business to form creating additional opportunities for people to earn wealth and preventing large companies with owners that posses all the wealth from protecting future streams of wealth against competition.
The idea that the rich do business between each other with few other people involved is also nonsense. Who do you think produces all the goods and services the rich enjoy? Rich people may be at the top but they have a considerable number of people producing goods and services for them, and the people under them needs good and services in turn for the work they provide. And the rich as they are called are not a static class of people as they often move down into lower income brackets over time as many people move up.
And if you want to look at the effects of wealth distribution just look at the last hundered years of massive increases to both the government and the gap between the wealthy and the poor. All wealth distribution does is creat dependants on the state, and thats just the way the State likes it.
Democrats/Republicans = Statist
