Public health care

[Јas]

What you're neglecting is that in a market where there is free competition, the consumer is free to penalize bad services by simply going somewhere else, whereas there is an incentive to provide good care.

Though, in this scenario, many consumers won't be able to penalize bad services because they can't financially afford to do so.

In a government monopoly, there is no incentive whatsoever since the patient has no alternatives, the only incentive is to perform a bad service so there will be problems and funding will be increased.

Even if there may be no significant financial incentive to provide good health care, there are surely other incentives at play to provide such health care depending on who exactly in the system one is considering.

[Јas]

What you're neglecting is that in a market where there is free competition, the consumer is free to penalize bad services by simply going somewhere else, whereas there is an incentive to provide good care.

Though, in this scenario, many consumers won't be able to penalize bad services because they can't financially afford to do so.

You don't know how much health care would cost in a free market,

Granted, but then who does?
Surely this point works both ways, you can hardly offer a guarantee that it will be affordable to all.

but regardless of that, in the current US system, a poorer person can always pay her expenses on cash or acess credit, while any person in, say Canada, has no choice at all.

If a person has ready access to cash/credit, then are they really poor?
Surely a truly poor person, unable to access the necessary cash or credit, would actually have no choice at all and no healthcare (unlike your prospective Canadian).

To quote Justice Beverley McLachlin on her opinion in the landmark case Chaoulli v. Quebec, acess to a waiting list is not acess to health care.

I suppose, but it's at least access to access. Of course there will be waiting lists in such a system - better to be on a waiting list for treatment than have no hope of it at all.

In a government monopoly, there is no incentive whatsoever since the patient has no alternatives, the only incentive is to perform a bad service so there will be problems and funding will be increased.

Even if there may be no significant financial incentive to provide good health care, there are surely other incentives at play to provide such health care depending on who exactly in the system one is considering.

Charitable impulsure, sure, but that impulse isn't banned on a free market, is it?

Even beyond that, your assumption that all persons within the system only respond to financial incentives is surely flawed. Otherwise, service by health care staff would surely amount much closer to a work-to-rule type effort than is generally the case - particularly those who view their work as vocational.

[Јas]

What you're neglecting is that in a market where there is free competition, the consumer is free to penalize bad services by simply going somewhere else, whereas there is an incentive to provide good care.

Though, in this scenario, many consumers won't be able to penalize bad services because they can't financially afford to do so.

You don't know how much health care would cost in a free market,

Granted, but then who does?
Surely this point works both ways, you can hardly offer a guarantee that it will be affordable to all.

In a social science, you can never offer guarantees, but I can offer a great degree of assurance based on knowledge of market processes

Which I'm sure you'll conced is hardly a concrete argument, but even if one was to accept it - why has your proposed approach not been adopted anywhere?

but regardless of that, in the current US system, a poorer person can always pay her expenses on cash or acess credit, while any person in, say Canada, has no choice at all.

If a person has ready access to cash/credit, then are they really poor?
Surely a truly poor person, unable to access the necessary cash or credit, would actually have no choice at all and no healthcare (unlike your prospective Canadian).

As I mentioned in response to Gabu, the free market would raise life patterns for everyone, decreasing the number of people in need. You can't look at free market health policies apart from a general free market economic policy. In a free market society, most of the underlying causes of extreme poverty would be removed--drug prohibition, minimum wages, regulations, taxes, zoning laws, public education, lack of personal responsibility, tariffs, and welfare itself are just some of the things implemented by the state that keep the 'underclass' stuck. Also, there is and always will be charitable impulses, and in a wealthier society there would be more resources available to provide for them.

Ah, so in order to avail of the benefits of the free market, not only would we need to deregulate the health care market but in effect all markets. In which case this is a most academic of discussions as in the forseeable future no major economy will take this approach.

To quote Justice Beverley McLachlin on her opinion in the landmark case Chaoulli v. Quebec, acess to a waiting list is not acess to health care.

I suppose, but it's at least access to access. Of course there will be waiting lists in such a system - better to be on a waiting list for treatment than have no hope of it at all.

But, leaving aside all the other issues of aacess I adressed, should everyone be forced into such an horrible monopoly? Leaving aside the paying for it with taxes, why shouldn't people be able to escape that nightmare and acess quality care through their own means? that is fundamentally not even socialistic, but communistic in nature, trying to achieve equality by brining everyone down!

Personally, I agree that a private health care system should be allowed to operate as well.
(Though I would prefer the Canadian system to the free market approach you advocate.)

In a government monopoly, there is no incentive whatsoever since the patient has no alternatives, the only incentive is to perform a bad service so there will be problems and funding will be increased.

Even if there may be no significant financial incentive to provide good health care, there are surely other incentives at play to provide such health care depending on who exactly in the system one is considering.

Charitable impulsure, sure, but that impulse isn't banned on a free market, is it?

Even beyond that, your assumption that all persons within the system only respond to financial incentives is surely flawed. Otherwise, service by health care staff would surely amount much closer to a work-to-rule type effort than is generally the case - particularly those who view their work as vocational.

So, if that is the case, there should be no problem at all with the proviison of health care in a free market to the few very poor people there would be, since these people you mention would donate a portion of their time (actually, this already happens anyway, the free market would just increase it).

As I say, discussing your proposed free market society is an exercise in the abstract.
You display remarkable confidence in the free market to provide solutions. Can I ask where this confidence derives from; and who or what has been most influential in forming your views?