| Ontario has a third justification: As a society, we value the idea of everyone having access to health care, and if we make medicine a free market, the only people who get it will be those willing to pay the most. Thus, we specifically reject the argument that providing health care to fewer people who pay more results in a greater benefit. The reasons for our belief vary from completely subjective moral arguments to arguments that society overall benefits from having a healthy citizenry, just as society overall benefits from having a healthy infrastructure. I don’t need to debate the specific reasons with you, I’m just pointing out that it is neither #1 nor #2. We certainly think there are people willing to pay more, and that those willing to pay more are correctly valuing it form themselves. We don’t believe that those unwilling to pay more don’t understand the value of medicine. In the end, not everyone agrees with your perspective on value. Many do. I understand there’s this gigantic country south of us who believe medicine should be a free market, and that many of its citizens think its health care system is providing better value than ours. But I insist that your views, while valid from your perspective, do not represent a universal truth. |
Um what? If you artificially reduce the price, you reduce the supply, and thus decrease the number of people who get it.
My model of free market here is not supposed to affect the total supply, just the limited supply is divided based on money. If price controls increase supply, then there was a market failure of some sort, which probably counts under reason 2.