In a free market people would still be trusting quacks and snake-handlers, not medical doctors. They'dve probably have been better off with them compared to what free market medicine of the European variant was.
People still trust quacks and snake oil salesmen, a lot of them are even FDA sanctioned, having government regulation of the medical field cannot change this because it is inherent in the nature of people.
The fact is however that most people are going to gravitate to the Doctors with the best records of success whether the government says they work or not.
I'm referring to the glory days of private medicine from the 5th-18th Centuries, before those evil socialists like Queen Victoria and Abraham Lincoln established actual standards for doctors and medicine.
Now of course the typical leftie out there will call this a market failure and an example of why we cannot trust the free market because of corporate greed like this.
I'm a pretty typical leftie and that's not what I said:
If you're judging by that comment, I have to say that's fairly consistent to my position too, particularly the part about government endorsed monopolies with no price controls.
Maybe I'm not a typical lefty either, but I think a goodly proportion of lefties would not violently disagree with that particular statement.
Your use of the term 'market failure' betrays a complete lack of understanding of the term or apparently economics. Sadly this is rather typical of conservative posters.
The theory of 'market failure' still assumes that the market or capitalist economy works perfectly when distributing goods and services and there are external things to it that create the problems such as the one you discuss. People on the left are just as likely to say that 'market failure' does not exist because the market economy is supposed to over charge for things and have all sorts of problems because it is the system itself that is flaws and/or imperfect. A system is not in failure if it's goals are to soak the poor in favor of the rich.
I mean, you could at a very minimum read a wiki entry on terms you wish to use beforehand.
You might have a point if I called it a market failure.
I did not, I used the phrase that way very specifically because it is the sort of argument against free market economics you typically see presented, economic ignorance and all
You also might have a point if I was actually a Conservative and not a libertarian, which is also known as a Classical Liberal.
Sorry screwed up the bolding on the earlier post and since I don't have a paid account I can't edit it. Figured it would be easier to delete and repost
Comments 68
Reply
People still trust quacks and snake oil salesmen, a lot of them are even FDA sanctioned, having government regulation of the medical field cannot change this because it is inherent in the nature of people.
The fact is however that most people are going to gravitate to the Doctors with the best records of success whether the government says they work or not.
Reply
Reply
Yeah sure that is still a relevant topic when discussing health care TODAY.
Reply
waaaaaaaaaoooooooowwwwwww.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm a pretty typical leftie and that's not what I said:
http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/923582.html?thread=71101118#t71101118
Reply
Reply
Maybe I'm not a typical lefty either, but I think a goodly proportion of lefties would not violently disagree with that particular statement.
Reply
Reply
The theory of 'market failure' still assumes that the market or capitalist economy works perfectly when distributing goods and services and there are external things to it that create the problems such as the one you discuss. People on the left are just as likely to say that 'market failure' does not exist because the market economy is supposed to over charge for things and have all sorts of problems because it is the system itself that is flaws and/or imperfect. A system is not in failure if it's goals are to soak the poor in favor of the rich.
I mean, you could at a very minimum read a wiki entry on terms you wish to use beforehand.
Reply
I did not, I used the phrase that way very specifically because it is the sort of argument against free market economics you typically see presented, economic ignorance and all
You also might have a point if I was actually a Conservative and not a libertarian, which is also known as a Classical Liberal.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment