• r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m not a libertarian, but from what I’ve seen of their positions on this, they don’t think that it’s possible in an effective way. There’s two possible versions: the government pays for everything, or there’s public and private health care. A lot of countries have both, which is probably the best option since driving out competition is going to make everything go to crap.

    The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can’t work or the existing system would implode in the transition.

    There are also a lot of people who don’t want to pay because someone who refused to get insurance for years finally decided to sign up for public health care because they suddenly got a serious health problem. In some possible arrangements, it would be necessary to force people to have health insurance, which is its own rabbit hole.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Do they not realize that universal health care has been done successfully and at a lower cost than privatized healthcare, in many other countries? Seems like a weak argument when there’s so much proof against it

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s two possible versions: the government pays for everything, or there’s public and private health care. A lot of countries have both, which is probably the best option since driving out competition is going to make everything go to crap.

      There’s a potential third option through cooperatively run hospitals.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      “The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can’t work or the existing system would implode in the transition.”

      can you even cite a real world example of this or is this another runaway hypothetical?

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      medical practitioners competing with each other isn’t how medicine advances

      • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If there’s no competition, then providers can just make up any price that they want and the government has to pay it.

        When there’s an entirely planned economy, there’s no possibility for alternatives to be created.

        • jorp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          when a huge multinational corporation worth more than the GDP of many nations organizes their resources using a plan decided by executives, and starts to vertically integrate to control their supply chain, and reaps the cost savings, that’s just good capitalism.

          No organization that’s publicly owned could ever vertically integrate and make efficient use of resources, no, you need a dictatorship where the wealthiest have all the power for that kind of thing to work

          The reason markets trend toward monopoly is that it’s so ineffective