|
|
|
|
|
|
by int_19h
260 days ago
|
|
|
The original argument wasn't against public healthcare per se, but against the US system in which it really is run as insurance, with multiple competing providers, who therefore don't have the power to negotiate down prices. It's very easy to find examples of abuse in this system. For example, in modern "factory towns" around corporate campuses, somehow, routine dental maintenance costs exactly the maximum amount provided for this purpose by the employee health plan. |
|
|
> If consumers actually directly paid the whole cost for health services, the prices charged would become far more regular.
Which is arguing against the very idea of insurance which distributes risk, its an absurd argument not even libertarians make. The problem for literarians/neoliberals is that we already have exactly the system they think should work great, it just doesn't, but they completely refuse to ever recognize that the reason it doesn't work is systemic and it will never be fixed by more literarianism/neoliberalism, we need to shove it. Whats needed is a single-payer, universal, zero(!!!)-private, public health care system.