If the only way to provide healthcare is at the end of a gun, then perhaps it is better for humanity to expire. Thankfully, I know this is not the case.
In the absence of violence-backed monopolies such as the ones all modern nation states employ when it comes to the medical/pharmaceutical industry, prices decline precipitously as a result of heavy competition, equating to greater affordability for everyone. As it stands now, the market is synthetically cornered.
Statistics even in very poor, violent places support this.
Even war-torn Somalia is doing much better without a state.
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
I look around me and see most everyone I know willing to help others, and willing to make the world a better place.
The state has killed 262 million people in roughly the last century alone, not counting wars.
I dare say we can do much better than that ;)
Yes we can do much better.
Health care is a wide field, it's not only medication, also a lot of technology is involved there. If the free market could be really able to provide those technology to everybody who needs it, I'm with you. But I still doubt it, new innovation will be reserved for those who can pay the price for it, until it might become affordable for everybody a way too long time will pass
About Somalia, even it is not called a state there anymore, but they do have authorities people need to follow if the want to survive the next day
Can you substantiate this claim with evidence? It seems to me that the opposite is true, as historically and economically speaking, every time competition is allowed in the market, new innovations become progressively more and more affordable. State-backed violent monopolies do not work this way.
This is why I can now type this on a tiny hand-held supercomputer called an iphone, but some people cannot afford medicine which has been stuck at the same high price for years and years and years.
Of course they become affordable but only if there is a market to make profit at.
To bring out medicine for some rare disease there isn't really an incentive to do all the expensive research and go through the long process of developing, if the market is only driven by supply and demand.
So those kind of products won't really become affordable for a lot of the people who really need them
That's another claim with no substantiation and the opposite has been true, historically. If there is a disease, there is an incentive. A robust, privatized free market would allow anyone and everyone interested to try and provide the cure.
Individuals in a region not affected by the disease may not be as interested as someone in the same region, and this is why the violence-backed regulations (aside from being immoral, on the face) need to be removed, opening the opportunity to provide a service to parties other than the state and its select few "chosen ones."
The reason it doesn't happen now is because the market is artificially centralized and regulated. This is why folks in the US often fly out of country for medical procedures.
I don't agree with you.
If the disease is too rare and difficult to treat the incentive won't be big enough for all the research or development. Of course some companies will try to find a product to sell, but only to make money not to heal. Why should they be interested in finding the cure when it won't pay off?
That's why we have this big market with supplements. Easy to produce and no real need to back up your claim. People in need might be desperate enough to buy it because there isn't an alternative.
You don't have to agree, but the science of economics and the study of history is on my side.
You honestly think that governments try to find cures because they care about people? Is that why so many are currently without adequate healthcare, even in socialized states?
I will wait to see the substantiations of your claims.
Either way, though, the indisputable fact remains that you are arguing for slavery, essentially, in saying some people must be forced to pay for the care of others, or else.
Your also not answering my questions.
And I never said that the government, whoever this is, is interesting in curing the people. But the free market neither
In most of Europe s welfare states there is adequate welfare for almost everybody. Of course it's not perfect and by no means free
However is it slavery when you get the same service back if you need it?