(01-30-2019, 09:59 PM)Last42min Wrote:

Quote: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.

Buyers want affordable health care. Sellers want customers. Both parties know what they want. One of my primary concerns with liberal economics is they think that anyone uneducated will fall flat on their face. That's not how people operate. People will figure out what is in their best interest.

Quote: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.

Removing insurance from the primary interaction between doctors and patients will drive health care costs down, not because patients are informed, but because doctors are. They will compete against one another, which will benefit the patient. The patient only needs to know which doctor is suits their particular need. Those who want customer service will pay for it, and those who want the best bang for their buck can look for it. We have the legal system to help weed out those doctors who are grossly negligent.  The government should focus on creating a competitive environment, insulate itself from corporate interference, and punish those who prey on the weak. Pretty much the exact opposite of what's happening now. 
Also, just to rebuke your point, neither of the above are necessarily available in a socialized health care system. There is no guarantee both parties will have access to all information (in fact, it would be less likely in a government monopoly) AND there are no alternatives.

Consumers lacking the ability to understand their own healthcare is one reason that the free market does not improve healthcare.
Involving the government more will not suddenly make people understand stuff that you need years of medical school to understand, I agree. I don't think the government would fix that problem.
But involving them more will help prevent people from buying stuff that will not improve their lives, and it will help make sure that the treatments that do improve lives are affordable for all of the people who would benefit from them.
I also think you could have a bigger role for the government without eliminating alternatives.
In Canada or in England if you want more than what the government provides, sucks to be you, go to another country.
But in Germany, or France, or Switzerland the government provides a minimum amount of care and you can buy more, or faster, or more luxurious, if you think that's a good use of your money.

---