(01-30-2019, 06:00 PM)Last42min Wrote: Your argument has faulty premises. The first is that assuming that because health care hasn't worked like that in the past, that it can't work like that. If car insurance worked like health insurance, you'd have to go through your insurance to change the air in your tire, get an oil change, or even get gas. Can you imagine the price of basic car maintenance if it were treated like health care? Driving a car would become completely unaffordable. My solution started with that idea in mind, then reworked health care to fit the model of car insurance. You haven't addressed where I have failed. Is there some kind of history that has already been tried where health insurance was limited to catastrophic injury? I'd be interested in the data.

The second, and much harder to prove, is that health care is one of the few areas that would work best under state control. That's just an assumption you are making. I don't need to accept either of those premises, at least not the way you just laid them out. More data please. Less rhetoric.

Tangentially speaking, I would prefer it if you criticized my suggestion with the goal of making it work OR give specific, verifiable instances why my plan is flawed (I'm sure there are weaknesses). I think one of the reasons that people can't accept new ideas is because it's easy to find a fault with something that isn't in place. Finding a fault does not discredit the entirety of the idea. The original question was how to blend national healthcare with a free market system. I have given it a lot of thought and this seems best to me. Again, if you can think of another way, I am all ears.

You've successfully knocked down the straw man version of my argument.
I don't know where in my post I appealed to how things have worked in the past.
My first premise is that free markets are good because they create efficiency. the invisible hand causes close to the right amount of supply to meet nearly the right amount of demand. It rewards innovators who finds new ways to deliver at the desired product at a lower cost.
My next premise is that it only works that way when the buyers and sellers both understand exactly what they want today, and what they will want in the foreseeable future.
When the buyer shows up with extremely incomplete information, and the seller is telling the buyer that he will literally die if he doesn't do what the seller says, the free market no longer performs efficiently, or optimally, or however else you want to describe the goodness of the free market.

---