• WindAqueduct@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Yes, people should have that, but it’s not that simple. Some liberals, particularly classical liberals, think a free market would bring those things to everyone. I don’t necessarily disagree, though I think free markets can only ever be free under communism/socialism, not capitalism. The issue with centrally planned, universal healthcare is that a hostile government could refuse to provide you care, much like insurance companies that don’t approve coverage for many things. Additionally, there needs to be strong medical privacy protections.

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      35 minutes ago

      I mean that’s the potential problem with any service: that the faction running it could decide they don’t like you. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason not to build things that help society though. A government could decide not to let you on a train, i still think there should be trains

    • Vingst [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Market-based healthcare favors perpetual treatment over permanent cures or preventative medicine, like dialysis over kidney transplants, insulin instead of diet and exercise. If you have a rare disease than you are just fucked, because pharmaceutical companies just want to sell dick pills. A market’s purpose is to maximize revenue, not patient well-being.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Markets are fundamentally profit driven, and services like healthcare or housing need to be provided regardless of the profit motive. These are a natural fit for the state owned industries. Where markets can have a role is providing nice to have things that improve general quality of life, but aren’t living essentials.