---

I think your assertion of “properly constructed society” is silly, I remember hearing similar arguments from proponents of communism. Ideal society cannot exist; we have to design system that is robust enough that it can deal with corruption, inefficiency and irrational actors.



---

Quote:
Your assertion that people have a natural right to the time money and services of others, moralizing the use of violence to obtain those services. This is wrong and immoral on a fundamental level.


Your position is flawed. Any society other than pure anarchy requires contribution from its members, almost always in form of taxes. Thus, by belonging to a society you give explicit agreement to give up some of you “time, money and services” in exchange for benefits of society. Since you view any society as immoral, I invite you to purchase one-way tickets to Somalia.

Quote:
Your obsession with providing said services via the most inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive means possible. Even socialists in other countries have concocted more sensible methods, leaving your approach basically indefensible even from a leftist perspective let alone the perspective of liberty.


You did not address my point #2. I stated that uninsured population relying on emergency room service is highly inefficient way to provide health coverage. It is both costly to the system, participants and does not provide good outcomes.

Emergency Room Use Among Adults Aged 18...une 2011 [PDF]

Expenses for a Hospital Emergency Room Visit [PDF]

Quote:
What it does not prove however, is that your model of universal care is any better - because systems need to be evaluated independently and in the entirety of their effects, so until you can accurately model a universal system wholly - you cannot make an assumption that such a system would actually address this or any other issue sufficiently.


My argument was much simpler – I pointed out that emergency room use for uninsured (they don’t have anywhere else to go) was inefficient, as a result getting them ON INSURANCE and channeling them away from emergency rooms will be cheaper.



Still, you bring up universal health care, and I am highly surprised you would state “what it does not prove however is that your model of universal care is any better”. In the past I demonstrated that universal health care is cheaper, both in % of GDP and absolute costs, and provides better outcomes by comparing US healthcare to a slew of other countries with socialized medicine. I posted data, studies and comprehensive charts demonstrating this. US health care costs, of about $8000 per person and 15% GDP, are above and beyond what any other country pays, with most socialized healthcare first-world countries paying about 9% of GDP and $3000 per person. You are making bad faith argument, you know, or ought to know, what you saying is not true.

Quote:
3. Well, in a free market the providers of services have financial incentive to not price people out of a system.


No they don’t. They have an incentive to maximize profits, that is by definition includes pricing some people out of the system. That is how profit optimization works.

Again, free market is ineffective model for a health care. People are unable to be rational consumers when health care is the product. While most consumers can make rational decision not to consume some good, putting a downward pressure on the price, there is no such downward pressure exists in a health care. Health care is market with unlimited demand, as a result supply/demand breaks down and entire system becomes unworkable.

[Linked Image]