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

Opening Argument The basis on which I premise my argument is that health-related services as with any good is best handled by the free-market. Given that transactions are informed by a vast and complex set of subjective values, The free market using free flowing price systems allows buyers and sellers to meet in order to conduct said transactions to each one's benefit. Of course, Health related services as with most goods have a cost. The current political climate surrounding health related services, Particularly their access and distribution, Has become polarized. Some would even argue that access to health care is "a right. " This would implicate two things: (1) physicians and nurses have no authority over the services they provide, And must submit their labor (even by force) to those who claim "a right" to those services; or (2) by "right, " one means "free of costs" or "free at the point of use. " The latter makes little sense since health related services always bear a cost so long as those who provide said services charge for their labor. As for "free at the point of use, " this is merely a guise concealing debt deferment, a debt which is usually redeemed through taxation. So the question really is, If as a collection of individuals we're not going to train and enslave health service providers: who pays? Among many popular political narratives, "tax the rich" is the frequently offered solution. It is by least a far stretch to propose that the one who consumes the services ought to be obligated to their payment (assuming it's not free. ) And moral implications of seizing one's property in order to finance the the consumption of another put aside, It's a rather simple logic: the rich have more; therefore, You can take more. Perhaps however there is a solution that doesn't involve debt deferment, Seizing property of another, Or enslaving physicians and nurses. I propose one solution is to reduce costs of health related services by freeing up the market. "Well Athias, Isn't the United States an exemplar of a free-market health services industry? " No. Don't get me wrong, It's not Canda, Britain, Or France, But the health services industry is heavily regulated and influenced by government intervention. Below I will list and substantiate the reasons these regulations and interventions have contributed to the inflated costs of health care: 1. The American Medical Association The American Medical Association, Founded in 1847, Is a government sanctioned and subsidized cartel of physician labor. It is able to restrict the amount of physician labor through its monopoly on licensing and licensing standards. In 1910, The AMA lobbied the republican administration under William Taft to closure or merge most of Medical Schools. This artificially increases the price for physician by creating a shortage, In both the amount of available physicians and those who enter the industry. By removing the government preference, Sanction, And subsidization of the American Medical Association, And allowing other licensing boards to compete, Not only would the price for physician labor deflate, But the inflated costs of physician labor will not be extended to the finals products--the health goods and services themselves. (1. ) Furthermore, When the government under the democratic administration of Lyndon Banes Johnson offered public options like Medicare and Medicaid, This sharply increased the demand of health related services. However, The licensing standards of the American Medical Association didn't allow supply of physician labor to meet the demand for physician labor. In the years between 1965 and 1972, The amount of medical graduates increased from 7455 to 7815. (2. ) (I mention this to inform the shortage created by the American Medical Association in the face of the increased demand for health related services in the advent of the public option. ) (2. ) Drug Patents In 1925, The United States under the the Coolidge administration allowed for government-licensed drug monopolies through the patent system. This allows select drug companies exclusivity in the industry. By removing the patent system, The entry of cheaper generics will enter the market. (3. ) The consequential reduction in the inflated prices will, Once again, Be extended to the final products: health goods and services. The FDA This is more of an extension of the previous arguments. Much like the American Medical Association, The FDA is very much an inhibitor to the availability of promising drugs (as opposed to physician labor with the former. ) The FDA determining which drugs are approved, Creates a shortage of available drugs. The costs of getting approval by the FDA is just south of $3 billion dollars (4. ) Now, The first thing that comes to mind is that we need the FDA in order to prevent the dissemination of toxic or death-inducing drugs. I'd first state that no drug is free from the prospect of toxicity or inducing death. There are several scenarios that would happen if we freed up the market and allowed more boards to over see the dissemination of drugs: 1. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective and have adverse side effects, 2. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective but have adverse side effects. 3. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective which lack adverse side effects. 4. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective which lack adverse side effects. The solution to this is a rather simple one: and that is social media. With the expansion of social media, Information about adverse drugs would not only reach wider audiences, But information would be disseminated much quicker. Let's also not forget that FDA hasn't always lived up to an impeccable standard of "keeping us safe" when it had to recall 35 prescription drugs. (5. ) I argue that addressing these issues will see dramatic decreases in the prices of health related services, Where our focus can shift from meeting these exorbitant health care costs through the seizure of property (even by force, ) the deferment of debt, Or possibly the enslavement of physicians and nurses to making health related services cheaper and affordable. Sources are numbered and listed in my comments section.