Access to and the distribution of health related services ought to be handled by the free market.

Rebuttal #1 "Before we get into a semantics game, Please realize that government controlled insurance does pertain to specifically the "access to" portion of this debate. Insurance specifically dictates what health services you have access to. " No, Insurance does not dictate which services to which one has access. The market does. (Insurance is a finance scheme. Insurance, Depending on the coverage, Attempts to finance the price of health goods and services. Price is a market mechanism. ) We can dispense with this notion that insurance is the only mechanism in which to finance the aforementioned goods and services. "Distribution isn't a "free market" decision in the slightest. Doctors decide what patients need in both systems. "< To the contrary. While medical prescription is not necessarily subject to the free market, Though one could argue efficacy of medical treatment would be facilitated in a free market system where price functions as an accurate feedback mechanism, And not a political device, The distribution of which I speak is of labor and services. A physician's/nurse's labor ought to be a free market decision. A doctor/nurse ought to, Like any other profession, Sell their labor at a price which suits them; by that very same token, Prospective clients/patients ought to be able to look for said labor and purchase it at a price which suits them. When buyers and sellers meet, They can negotiate terms which serve each one's benefit. When these terms are willfully agreed upon, Transaction occurs. That is the function of the free market. "This argument isn't about optional health-related things like Lasik surgery. We can both agree that optional "health-related" services should be left to the free market. Government regulations should only then seek to protect citizens from con artists. " Why not? Why are you attempting to restrict the discussion of "access to" health related services to just non-elective procedures? Why would it be more "efficient" as you claim to cover for example, Chemotherapy, The side effects of which--sentiments aside--make one understandably "less productive, " as opposed to Lasik Surgery, Which can improve one's vision, And can make one "more productive"? Rebuttal #2 "The free market is not the ideal option for every market. " I would disagree. The logistics of every market is the same--based on the description I gave above. Why would it be ideal in one market and not the other? "From a business perspective, Monopolies make sense for several markets, But none more-so than health insurance. " How so? "If monopolies are the most efficient option, They make more sense under government control than private control. " This is a conditional proposition for which you have not substantiated the premise--i. E. Monopolies are more efficient. I would contend that monopolies are inefficient for the following reasons: 1. Price Fixing: especially in markets with relatively price-inelastic goods, A monopoly can charge a price far above its product's market value. 2. Inferior Goods: due to its price fixing, A monopoly has no incentive to improve upon its goods. Without a free-flowing price system, Which buyers and sellers use to gauge their subjective values, The feedback acquired will not be subjected to a consumer standard, But the monopoly's. 3. Barriers to entry: any prospective seller which would enter the market is barred from entering the market, Usually by stated sanctioned policy. "Think of how the business of insurance works. A large group of people pay a fixed yearly rate to cover the damages that everyone in the group sustains over the course of that time. This buys people peace of mind knowing that a catastrophic event won't put them out of business. What people pay is determined by the yearly cost of insurance divided by the number of participants in the insurance. Only, That isn't all that goes into what people pay. Admin costs, The rental of buildings, Employee costs, Et cetera. All of these costs exist under government control, But are severely reduced. Governments wouldn't need to negotiate with every single healthcare provider for every service. Yes, And each individual coverage cost depends on their liability. High-risk covers are charged higher premiums, While low-risk covers are charged less. How are the costs you mentioned "severely reduced" by government control? And by which means does this government produce the severe reduction? "On top of that, Government control comes with reduced costs in other ways. " You haven't really explained the first ways in which government control comes with reduced costs. "The government does not need to pay for advertisements. " The how does the government advertise its product? Https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234351/ "Depending on the product this severely reduces the costs" But you're relating the government's involvement to the alleged reduction of these costs. There should be no "depends, " in your statements. Offer substance to your claims. "The government doesn't seek to make a percentage profit for expansion. This cuts costs. " How? Don't just claim that it does. Explain how? Rebuttal #3 "What this means is that you may pay 5000 for insurance yearly now. To cover everyone in the US your taxes would rise by lets say 4800 as a conservative number. This means that because of advertising costs, Profit motive, Admin and employee costs, Et cetera private insurance gives you access to a limited number of doctors and services and costs more. If you could pay 5000 to cover just yourself or you could pay 4800 to cover yourself and 2 other people, The choice is clear. This is the benefit we gain from single payer, And why the majority of the US, Even in the republican party, Wants single payer. " Please provide a source for this statement since you're using actual numbers. "Thus, Claiming that taxes will be raised on the rich is a ridiculous point. " It is a ridiculous point. The "rich" are more mobile and spend more time lobbying tax policy. Hikes in taxes affect everyone else who aren't as mobile--i. E. Upper middle class, Middle class, Working poor, And poor. It's a bit counterintutive. "All studies done on this even libertarian ones show that single payer costs less, Not more. While your taxes will be raised, You will have extra money in your pocket when the system changes at the end of the day, And a wider choice of doctors. " Please provide sources which support this claim. Rebuttal #4 "There is no free market when it comes to doctor services right now. " I agree. But then, Who claimed that there was a currently a free market for physician services right now? There is no free market when it comes to doctor services right now. This is because no doctor or hospital can tell you how much a procedure costs. This is because insurances all negotiate prices separately for pricing. Have you ever gone to the doctor and known what you would be charged? A free market would include people not having insurance being able to shop around. "When underinsured or people without insurance have emergencies and are taken to the hospital, They are taken care of. When they can't pay the doctors suffer because they aren't being paid. The people go bankrupt and have their lives shattered, Or hospitals are forced to sell their debts to collections agencies at a massively reduced rate, Or the government pays for it anyway. Why not go for single payer to pay for the preventative care and not have doctors and hospitals wondering if or when they'll get paid while simultaneously reducing the number of serious illnesses and diseases in America? The immediacy of payment and not having people go bankrupt, Avoid payments, Et cetera is actually a big problem in America. " Why not opt for a free-market system which allows physicians and nurses to provide labor at their discretion? Why not allow them to negotiate with patients directly payment plans? You've yet to provide substance to how "single payer" is "superior" as you claim for doctors. Rebuttal #5 " Nearly all metrics you can use to analyze the efficacy of a healthcare system show that single payer is superior to private healthcare, Ie our current system. Outcomes? Better in countries with national healthcare. No way to disagree. Coverage? Millions underinsured or lacking insurance, On top of some 45 thousand a year dying due to lack of insurance (a 9/11 event monthly) can all be cited in favor of single payer. Approval/happiness with the system? Single payer wins. Freedom of companies? Healthcare is still private. The only losers here are private insurers who have gouged our citizens long enough. No reason to weigh this more than outcomes. Freedom of the people? See whatever doctor you want. Live without worrying that your next hospital visit will see you homeless. For people with no insurance now, Live without the worry of immediate death. Live with doctors who can prevent many serious conditions. Live improved lives and be better workers with lower stress. In the end I have to ask, Why are you limiting the freedom of hundreds of millions and costing the lives of hundreds of thousands to save the gouging inefficient business of tens of thousands of private health insurance providers? The free market, If it were free, The majority of the citizens choose single payer. In every country that starts it, Its efficacy is proven. What metric of analysis do you have to tip the scales in your favor? I submit there are none. Nothing you have can outweigh the pros. " Please provide sources for your metrics. Thus far, All these are just alleged claims. "Wait times Important to whom