Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I am of the firm belief that healthcare is one of the basic goods that should be provided by a government. Some may cry socialism and argue that free markets are more "efficient", but that assumes people shouldn't have equal right to basic healthcare services. It also ignores the fact that many of the generally accepted principals required for a functioning free market are difficult to achieve in healthcare. In an emergency situation, for example, buyers are likely constrained to the closest hospital, at which point that hospital become a monopoly for that particular buyer. When the the good on offer is survival, it's easy to see where problems might arise.

I live in a country that has been rated the freest economy on earth every year since 1995 [1]. Low taxes, small government, minimal regulation. So what does healthcare look like here for the average person? $13/day. Got a sore finger? $13/day. Intensive care? $13/day.

There is a significant parallel private system that offers all the luxuries and perks that a free market can provide (no waiting times, private rooms, choice of doctor etc.). But it competes with the public hospitals for buyers. In providing a competing alternative, I would speculate that the public system limits the type of monopolistic situations that can arise.

No system is perfect and clearly there are enormous differences between the US and elsewhere, but it's interesting to note that the "freest economy on earth" has universal public healthcare, in addition to a freely competing private system.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Hong_Kong

[3] http://www.news.gov.hk/en/record/html/2013/04/20130409_19040...



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: