Reply #34: I have to disagree

[Chulanowa]

But first off, you might want to take a look at what you agree to when you register here. DU really isn't a forum for open debate from all sides. We have enough issues just between candidate camps. Bringing in everyone from every party would just leave this place a smoking ruin when the day is done :D It's DemocraticUnderground, after all. It's not the intent to stifle debate - just check around, this place is hardly backslapper central - But it's nice to be able to talk about liberal ideas without someone barging in and telling us how Hitler was a democrat and we're all going to hell for not lynching "teh gayz," y'know? :)

Anyway, on topic... Not all "businesses" are the same. The gigantic problem with free market philosophy is the assumption that it's always Radio Shack vs Circuit City; Businesses selling a luxury product competing with one another. It applies this to every sort of business, from schools to hospitals even into government. And it's stupid, because many "businesses" by their very nature, don't follow that model. In the case of health care, it is not a commodity. It's a necessity. I'll use myself as an example.

Last year, I got bitten by a dog. He tore off a chunk of my left nostril. The fact that I went to the hospital was not a choice of preference for me - I had a gaping wound on my face and my nose was half-shredded. I honestly didn't consider treatment to be "optional" you get my drift? what's more, I didn't call around to see who had the best rates. I didn't try to see who had the best service. I just went to the closest damn hospital I could so they could try to keep any more blood from gushing out of my nose, and rebuild it as best as they could.

That is how hospitals operate. People NEED to go to one - hospital care is not elective, they're guaranteed business - and they will go to whatever one is closest. It is just not a "competitive market." Ever heard of some car wreck victim telling the EMT "No, no, don't take me to Municipal, I do business with St. Marcus across town!" 'Course you don't.

Relying on charity is a good cop-out, because it's, well, unreliable. A hospital's every need is not going to be met when it needs to be met by some random philanthropist. For starters, there's not really that many philanthropists to go around, and second, even they can get strapped for cash, in all practicality. Or maybe they just don't... y'know... want to. There's a few other hoops that charity fails to jump through - such as inner-city hospitals. Poor people need care too, but your solution (free market all the way!) would have them closing down, unless some kind-hearted soul wants to take their finances in as personal good will. Which, if someone wanted to do so... would have happened already.

And of course "free market" only makes the problem of HMO's and pharmaceuticals worse. You see, the "free market" has already been applied to insurance companies, and how did they respond? By running pure profit schemes that are essentially theft - you pay for a service after agreeing to a contract stating they are not bound to provide that service. Pure money. On the pharmaceutical side, it's all about money. Dead people don't buy pills, but neither do healthy people. So the goal is to make "treatments" rather than cures, and convince healthy people that they're sick and in dire need of medication (Restless Leg Syndrome? You're kidding me?). As a result the actual medicine is limited in supply, overpriced, and under-researched, but the pharma companies are making a bundle.

I'm afraid that capitalism and health care don't mix that well.