Disagree. You are comparing apples and oranges. The tech industry does not need to cater to everyone. They can pick and choose their customers. For example, Apple doesn't have to worry about folks who cannot afford their products. It's not their problem. They don't need to cater to them.
The health care industry is the complete opposite. It needs to account for the whole population. in any given year a small percentage of the population accounts for the bulk of the medical costs. These costs must be shared by all with no way of mitigating or eliminating this type of risk. If you were operating in a free market then you would run up against adverse selection. The point where healthy people do not deem it worthwhile to pay for coverage and the only people who are partaking are the sick individuals who have no choice but to seek coverage due to high medical costs. Thus, it is not possible to be inclusive of society as a whole. You cannot cover the medical expenses of every citizen without either incurring major losses or raising premiums to astronomical levels.
I am a strong proponent of the free market in most cases but I just don't think it can work for the health care industry. Simply because it has to cover everyone rich and poor, young and old, and everyone in between regardless of cost or risk.
Lets clarify something real quick, healthcare is not a right. Agreed?
Apple does have to worry about who and who cannot afford their products. That is how business works, if they price it out of the range of consumers, it would lead to loss of revenue and end of the company if they do not change their ways. Health care is a little different due to the fact that you have a government which has a constant stream of revenue regardless of their financials.
There is a flaw in your example, sick people would have a choice if young people decide not to pay for healthcare. They can stay and pay higher premiums but being covered for conditions which may affect them. Or they can pay out of pocket for expenses which would go down in a free market economy because equilibrium would be reached.
I am glad that you embrace the ideas of free markets in other cases and I hope you will see my point when it comes to healthcare. I think Milton Friedman did a study in which showed that between early and late 1990s, for-profit hospitals deacreased from 50% to 10%. During this time spending rose by about 200% and yet cost per patient rose became 15 times higher than needed. Nations like France and Canada have a nationalized health care system and look at them, they are facing many challenges which are crippling them.
You would think wrong.
Even in universal systems, people are living longer (which costs more) due in part to technology (that costs) more it is a cycle.
However the systems were government is "more" involved. They spend half of what we do.
K I guess Ill just write them back and tell em to stop fucking lying and blaming Obama.
I do not understand why you bring up the fact that some of these people live longer, better healthcare is just one of many reasons.
Almost a half, I think it was about 60% more. Which is something I have been trying to explain to many people here. More unecessary government regulations means more bureaucracy meaning inefficiency. Just because some other countries are spending less does not mean they are doing much better. Review the France's health care system.