We currently have a government and that government regulates, and therefore in the current government we're in, we do not operate under pure unregulated free market. This is true, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. There are those that would argue we should operate in an unregulated market. There are many more that think we should at least nudge closer to that side of the spectrum, for sure.
I think we're hung up on semantics, because none of this negates the concept of a "free market" existing or disproves its purpose or power.
So many many words when a simple "horseshit" would have done.
That said, however, this is exactly what the obtuse jackassity was attempting to obscure. Nobody said "free market" meant total melee.
Spirit of competition, principles of free enterprise, basics of capitalism -- all at play, all should be at play. That's all anybody was trying to say before somebody semanticized the whole thing to death.
Where I disagree with wes completely and entirely is that the principles of the free market SHOULD and DO apply to healthcare.
People should have a choice in terms of what insurance options they take, what doctors they visit, what preventative care measures they follow, what prescriptions they purchase, etc. The best way to drive those costs down and improve the level of service/care is to apply the basic principles of competition. If you're a doctor and want to make more? Be the best motherfucker out there. People will pay.
When all that is government (mis)managed the only result is higher costs, lowered quality and restricted access.
That needs to stop.
312 Replies
54454 Views