I apologize for bumping in on your discussion, but, it is not a philosophical argument. In this case, there have been series of articles that have been written that show why market based solutions don't work in health care because this is not a symmetrical market. For markets to function, it requires symmetry of buyers and sellers.
Originally Posted by C-ross12
Obviously in emergency situations, shopping or negotiating are not at issue. If you were unconscious, bleeding, etc. there is no negotiation nor the ability to shop.
Almost as obvious are lesser levels (broken leg, etc.) and a sick son or daughter, spouse, parent, etc. Although not life threatening, time and expertise rule out market based solutions.
The only place in medicine where market solutions have worked, has been in those very limited areas where time is of no issue and information is plentiful. An example of this would be lasik. However if you compare lasik to an attack of appendicitis it does not track.
If you think individuals can effectively shop for insurance, then let me tell you I teach professionals, and they readily admit, the contracts are so convoluted that they are nearly opaque. Now these are professionals. One cannot be an expert in every facet of life. If you are an expert in nuclear physics, it does not give you the ability to understand these contracts.
So while it can be argued that philosophically the market works in the long run, in medicine, it is not about the long run for the individual that needs care. Consequently, the market cannot be efficient.
The proof of all of this is a simple fact based reality. We pay twice as much per capita for health care than any western nation. You might think that our health care is better than any where else, but do you think it is twice as good?
Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?