This is not Reddit or wherever you've been hanging out online up till now, so do not refer to me - or anyone else here - as "dawg", and try to find some basic respect for the people you're engaging with on HN.

In a thread where I've already warned about black and white thinking we have this:

> Yes, and healthcare is a good thing to regulate, you know, cause of all those pesky ethics and morals that get involved with human life.

Since when does deregulation mean to remove all regulations and laws? Then we have this:

> you're being either intentionally obtuse or incredibly naive.

Aside from more of the inability to show basic respect we've already touched on, it's like a parody of black and white thinking with the invidious false dilemma, but it doesn't end there:

> Yes, the evidence says a resounding yes in basically every country, including the U.K., even when the NHS is underfunded. Like another poster pointed out, basically any base-line metric puts the U.S. in ranks with most third-world countries

Imagine turning a complex issue into this statement. It's not beyond parody but it's approaching that point.

> This is starting to border on bad-faith.

No, it's not. You continue about how you're unwilling to spell out your argument and then, further into your response, continue by saying that I'm "just yelling" without expanding on my points.

a) I'm not yelling. No one is yelling. Try not to react emotionally to those who disagree with you and/or project emotions onto them that they haven't at least alluded to.

b) If you're unwilling to state your argument clearly and succintly then it is hypocritical to accuse others of also not doing so (and you're incorrect anyway, so it's blatant hypocrisy).

> If you can't accept the premise that healthcare is a high barrier to entry market, then you're not familiar with the problem.

I'm not going to accept the premise until you state the reasoning behind the premise. Perhaps you react the way you have because you're unused to being challenged. If so, you shouldn't engage in discussion on the internet, and certainly not here.

Regardless, let's answer some of these from the absurd straw man you've perpetrated, and hopefuly, afterwards, you'll take some time to acknowledge the benefits of not reducing everything down to binary, childish imitations of an argument.

> > I live in Japan, I choose the hospital/clinic/doctor that I see, for everything.

> Yeah, I choose my dentist, too dawg, doesn't mean that I can choose what E.R.

I've already responded to the fatuous ER argument elsewhere, but if you'd done any research into Japan - where you claim single payer "works" without it being "embarrassing" - you'd know that the way ambulances are provided and hospitals are chosen in an emergency is embarrassing, but then you're clearly "not familiar with the problem".

I'd explain it to you myself but I'm not in a generous mood for some reason (note the allusion to an actual emotion I'm experiencing).

> You can't just deregulate things and hope it'll fix it

I'm not basing my ideas on hope but on reason and consideration.

> You haven't even proposed a solution here, you've just yelled "Free market!" and "Deregulate healthcare!"

The Socratic method would blow your mind. Regardless, I provided some explanation in the form of comparison in another comment.

> But all that will do is worsen the quality that we see

Perhap you could tell us, with regards to LASIK[1]:

a) Has the cost come down since FDA approval?

b) Has the quality gone down?

c) Is the availability greater now than then, and to what extent?

d) Has there been a lesser or greater number of unethical actions in the provision of LASIK than other, more regulated treatments?

e) Has there been a lesser or greater number of bothched treatments in the provision of LASIK than other, more regulated treatments?

You may pick the regulated treatment to compare with.

> Like another poster pointed out, basically any base-line metric puts the U.S. in ranks with most third-world countries. It's embarrassing.

What's embarrassing is not knowing the difference between the mean, mode and median (a look at the average salary of baseball teams is always good for this). This is why any analysis made should be multivariate and not black and white, or you end up with childish conclusions.

For analyses that take into account more than one measure, you get very different outcomes[2]:

> if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place to…you guessed it…first. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth.

That's just one, small example. The article contains others and there's more out there. If you're able to respond in the way befitting of the vast majority of HNers then we could discuss those.

Then we can get on to why there are more doctors taking the R.O.A.D. path and why this might do well to be applied to things like surgery, and the actual OECD figures for the UK and US. They'll be highly instructive.

[1] https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20191220/twenty-years-...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-my...