Did you just out yourself?

This video is semantic garbage and idealized portrayals that clash with historical reality.

>> ^Farhad2000:
This video is semantic garbage and idealized portrayals that clash with historical reality.


Historical reality? You don't feel it necessary to cite some references? The free market has never existed in any economy, as far as I know.

For good reason.

^Antiquated. Uninformed. Calumnious.

^Blankfist->Invisible Hand->Holy Spook

>> ^blankfist:
The free market has never existed in any economy, as far as I know.

So what evidence do you have that such an arrangement would be an improvement over our current system?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> So what evidence do you have that such an arrangement would be an improvement over our current system?


None. The free market is up to individuals to discern what works and doesn't work. Pretty much what you're experiencing now minus the corporations and the ineffectual government regulations.

Imagine going to see a nurse (in her home) outside of the expensive doctor's office when you are not sick enough to see a doctor. Sometimes we're not that sick to deal with an expensive doctor with an expensive overhead.

Is that so terrible?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
the expensive doctor's office when you are not sick enough to see a doctor.

You can't be serious trumpeting this as an example.

The free market to be considered free requires full information to make efficient choices by consumers.

Now when you go to the doctor, you are not qualified in any way to make any value judgment on what is considered good or bad for you, that small chest pain could be just that or your appendix removed or have kidney stones.

You are wholly reliant on the doctor to do his job, this is know as asymmetrical information. The same applies 90% when you do banking or automotive repair or anything that requires a specialized skill set or knowledge.

How does a consumer know what is better in those cases? They don't this breaks the free market analogy.
-----

Furthermore, if the market is free, that home nurse could be providing snake oil solutions, but through clever late night advertising and promos she is selling magnetic coil rings that. She makes $$$. That is free market.

She is not providing a service really, the patients pay for an X gratification so she is actually filling a niche in the consumer wants. Thus her solutions fall well into the free market. Since what you are talking about is health care regulation.
-----

The American medical system as it is now is interesting, expensive pre-tests are carried out because Doctors are fearful of litigation and do a barrage of tests because they want a paper assurance about how they reach their medical conclusions, disregarding the fact that they spent most of their adult lives studying ailments on which they can provide medical solutions at the outset.

The doctors don't care because they are not risk exposed and are leveraging the cost to the patient, which is most cases should be leveraged to the insurance company which it in most cases won't because you aren't covered because you represent a high risk group. That's free market as well.

You don't like public health care then you should be able to afford private, if you can't then Ayn Rand sees you as a failure as you shrugged off the Atlas.

Hello, my name is Farthead2000 and I live in fear. My government is smarter than me. I like that. I hope it remains the brilliant entity that coddles me from cradle to grave.

I fear snake oil practices because I live in a community where no business medical or otherwise lives or dies by its reputations, so I see no value in any medical practices outside of what my government dictates as safe and wonderful for me and my hooker friends I visit on occasion.

Oh. But that's cool right? I mean, as long as they're receiving expensive checkups where they pass those savings on to me?! Awesome! I'm so awesome. I love myself. I am Farthead2000. I love little boys.

Sorry, bf - while from the POV of political economics there can always be much debate, from the pov of strict economic theory Farhad is right and you are wrong

One of the basic postulates in the 'Free market' theory is 100% informed decision on the consumers' part. There shouldn't be any doubt - that will never happen. And, in my opinion, a 'free market' shouldn't occur either - especially in particular areas, such as medicine and health care. I won't attempt debating the US' health-care system though, because I am almost completely ignorant on the subject matter, and because from what I gather the majority would support it needing an overhaul, but as far as the economics in debating a 'free market' are concerned, Farhad really was spot-on.

My problem here is that I think you're in the wrong advocating a 'free market', since what I understand by that is a theoretical utopia, whereas your understanding of it might be something else entirely. I'll go on a limb and say that it's exactly that (me and Farhad having rather radically different definitions for what a 'Free market' is) what's the primary reason for our disagreement here.

But, farthead likes little boys.

Blankfist is stumped again, conceding defeat with another inappropriate sexual comment.