[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You only missed a couple questions on my last post
Do you think a total free market system would produce what you want?

Yes.

Would you eliminate all controls and supports?

Our government's duty toward a free market is to ensure its freedom by prosecuting practices that corrupt and strangle market freedom. Other "controls" and "supports" tend to capture the market into a governmental or political system wherein the government more uniformly directs the market rather than protecting it, and thereby diminishes the competitive nature of a free market needed to make price a signal to manage costs rather than just a form of tax which raises costs.

Do you think health insurance is unnecessary?

Insurance is not necessary. But it is a useful commodity for the buyer if it gives him an advantage over those who are uninsured, and, especially if, it does not artificially drive up cost. That is, when the cost of care is determined by individual consumers' ability to pay, then collective insurance costs and premiums are affordable. If too many people are "insured," then health care provider costs will reflect the insurance company's (or the government's) ability to pay rather than the individual out of pocket ability to pay. In which case the price for care would eventually rise beyond the individual's ability to pay out of pocket (or credit). And would keep on rising as government continued to try to regulate the system with new controls which tried to keep costs down.

In effect, there is the paradox that insurance is useful when it provides an advantage. But it becomes onerous when everybody is insured. First, it is no longer an advantage because everyone else has it. Second, because costs rise significantly when they are based on government's and or corporations' ability to pay rather than individual ability to do so. And third, government reaction to rising costs is to regulate the health care market, which raises costs, which inspires new regulations, and continues in a spiral of continuing rise in the cost of health care.

Would healthcare providers need to be certified in any way?

A market is not free if the trade is not fair. A seller taking good money for service not worth the money, or worse, is physically harmful to the buyer, is a coercive tactic. A useful function of government is to assure that the market is free of corruptive and coercive tactics.

Are we getting rid of lawyers also?

Why?

Would health care providers do a credit check before performing any services? "He's broke, toss him out the door"

If someone could afford to pay high insurance premiums, he would probably be able to pass a credit check. For those who are that poor we've always had charities and pro-bono services. Large charitable organizations used to be on file with hospitals to pay for needy cases. State services have always existed to assist the poor. This goes continuously all the way back to the colonial days when the truly needy were given sustenance.

Who would pick up the bodies?

You could if you care so much.

How much do you think it would cost per capita for your idea of healthcare?

A lot less than it does with our current system.