[conanbatt]

>You know those regulations are there for a reason right?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

> It depends on what you mean by 'destroy markets.' The market is functioning well in the sense that healthcare stocks keep going up. It's functioning poorly in the sense that it's the ill who have to die or go bankrupt to support it.

The measure of the health of a market is not the profits of the industry in it. A better rule of thumb would be how many people get serviced and at what relative cost. In that sense, the american healthcare market is very unhealthy.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Oh come on, this platitude applies to people saying 'less regulation' just as much as it does me.

>The measure of the health of a market is not the profits of the industry in it. A better rule of thumb would be how many people get serviced and at what relative cost. In that sense, the american healthcare market is very unhealthy.

Sure, but in that sense we can look around and see that healthcare markets are generally less healthy when they are (1) more private and (2) less regulated.

[conanbatt]

> Oh come on, this platitude applies to people saying 'less regulation' just as much as it does me

I didn't argue that regulations are good because there was a purpose to them nor its opposite. So it doesnt really apply to my stance so far.

> Sure, but in that sense we can look around and see that healthcare markets are generally less healthy when they are (1) more private and (2) less regulated.

I disagree with that statement, and I am sure that you will find examples of private markets that are more efficient than public markets, of the which you only need 1 to disprove the idea that public > private on health.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I didn't argue that regulations are good because there was a purpose to them nor its opposite. So it doesnt really apply to my stance so far.

I mean 'the road to hell is paved' is just an argument against trying to do anything good, it's not exactly relevant.

>I disagree with that statement, and I am sure that you will find examples of private markets that are more efficient than public markets, of the which you only need 1 to disprove the idea that public > private on health.

Well no, because I'm speaking in general. But I'd love to know your example.

[conanbatt]

> Well no, because I'm speaking in general. But I'd love to know your example.

Instead of wasting time with examples that dont go for the core of your stance, can you share what would change your mind in the general?

Mine is that lightly regulated free healthcare markets will be efficient (though might not be equitable).

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>Mine is that lightly regulated free healthcare markets will be efficient (though might not be equitable).

And what is 'efficient'? I think a major component of a well functioning healthcare system is that it's equitable. Our problem with healthcare is driven by the generalized problem of 'economization.' A rich person doesn't have some intrinsic quality that makes them more deserving of quality healthcare.

A healthcare system which is extremely efficient at treating the rich and letting the poor die isn't really what I'm looking for. Efficiency and equality must be balanced. What I'd say is that the US is pretty terrible at both and that's sad.

>Instead of wasting time with examples that don't go for the core of your stance, can you share what would change your mind in the general?

Some evidence that shows that mostly private healthcare systems generally function better than mostly public ones or some evidence that healthcare regulation in the US has led to worse outcomes and not better ones would at least give me a jumping point. But I'd also ask you to answer your own question here.

[conanbatt]

> What I'd say is that the US is pretty terrible at both and that's sad.

Right, inefficiency tends to harm both equitability and value/cost(loose efficiency definition), but the US market is not what it is because it is efficient or because it is equitable, which is a classic dichotomy of microeconomics.

> Some evidence that shows that mostly private healthcare systems generally function better than mostly public ones or some evidence that healthcare regulation in the US has led to worse outcomes and not better ones would at least give me a jumping point.

I see. So the challenge here is that we can only compare apples to oranges over and over again: we could try to see east germand and west germany, but for other reasons the economics were different. We can compare same country public and private like Germany and Argentina, and get to different conclusions (in germany, private is for the rich, in argentina, public is for the poor). We can compare England to the US, but how do you adjust for cultural and income differences?

For example, healthcare in the US was relatively very cheap 50 years ago, where it was still private. What happened in the middle?

Instead of looking so broadly at private vs public, its better i think to focus on why its expensive. And I can assure you that the top 5 reasons why healthcare in the us is expensive is due to government irresponsibilities. If the government cant even fix its own mistakes, how is it going to handle a much larger responsibility?

> But I'd also ask you to answer your own question here.

I did.