Hacker News Reader

Comment by subverter | Hacker News Reader

That's also assuming the costs would stay the same, which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening. With lower costs, more people could afford to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, which would reduce the amount of voluntary money necessary to cover those who truly need it.

View on HN

Have you ever considered that your beliefs are utopian in nature? That if we give over everything to the market things won't just solve themselves?

Besides healthcare costs are lower in countries where the government intervenes more than ours does disproving the point.

I try to keep an open mind. I don't believe things will just solve themselves, nor do I think the market is the perfect solution. I do believe, however, that it's a better solution than government intervention, and we haven't found a superior solution.

Also, source for your second assertion?

The US has the highest healthcare costs in the OECD on an aggregate basis, on a per capita basis, and on a share of GDP basis.

The OECD publishes copious statistics on healthcare expenditures, access, quality, and outcomes: http://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm

>Also, source for your second assertion?

It's well established, just google it.

>which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening.

That's a very strong assumption, and I see no reason to believe its true.

Look at health care costs pre- and post-1965. They began increasing in 1965 with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, and have continued to increase as more and more government regulations have been added since.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com