Yes.

No

nope

could free market be everything they say? yes? could it also be a failure? yes. it depends on the society and how they make it a "free market" in a perfect world any system would work, communism, capitalism, socialism, ect.

> Schniepel wrote:

> i do not think it could be as "efficient"
I dont know how it is in other countries... here private healthcare insurances can choose if they insure u or not.
If u appear to be a customer with cronical illness for example.. they may think you will cost them more then u pay and they can decide not to insure you.
For sure you could make a law that they have to offer some basic insurance to everyone.. but then.. it will not really be "free" anymore.

Sorry, but you are not up-to-date. Our Supreme Court just decided diffrent:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,629649,00.html

Now private health care has to offer insurances even for chronic ill people.

"Sorry, but you are not up-to-date. Our Supreme Court just decided diffrent"

Ok.. i have to correct my sentence then...

Until yesterday private insurance companies could reject insuring you...

And why the quotes? Are you not looking at the real efficiency but rather some imaginary use of the term?

If they're too poor to buy it I say we deport them to Germany

>>but when companies can decide who they insure it is not available to everyone and so its not efficient for everyone.<<

What does that mean, that if I'm fat and smoke and engage in risky behavior and this effects my healthcare options the system is not as efficient? You have a strange definition of efficiency.

>>Under european systems I would be covered when I got out of school, no questions asked. <<

Yes, with waiting lists for primary care visits, specialist visits, and many procedures in many countries! If you are eligible.

I just love the notion that government involvement in healthcare brings us more services at lower prices.

In the cases where prices are lowered, shortages of services are the result. You can require that doctors in your area offer X and Y services for X and Y price, but you cannot require doctors to offer X and Y serices in your area.

There are things that can be fixed to reduce healthcare costs drastically, like preventing bullshit litigation and absurd rulings from causing skyrocketing insurance costs, but doing these things does not increase the power of lawmakers and government, so they are instead pursuing greater control despite the fact that it raises costs (or causes shortage) and reduces options.

Anyone who buys into the garbage that more government reduces costs is ignorant of the basic education we take for granted or plain old retarded. It's disgusting.

The point is that your judgement of what doctors ought to choose to work for (and where) has NO bearing on the REAL effects that such government control has on healthcare.

It's hoping to draw you into fallacious reasoning to even bring up what doctors SHOULD work for when what matters is real circumstances and effects in the real world. It's only even brought up to confuse you.