Milton Friedman – Health Care in a Free Market

Milton Friedman fields questions from medical professionals at the Mayo Clinic regarding his advocacy of a free market in health care.

Duration : 0:9:3

[youtube -6t-R3pWrRw]

  • @quinnrasta The … @quinnrasta The market is a lot better than the FDA and if it were not for all the FDA regulations many more drugs come on the market and stay on the market. What happens is you get a drug company bribing a regulator to discontinue a drug to promote their drug. The free market would dictate the best drug for the best price, rather than the FDA picking which campaign donor contributed the most money. The market would create a lot more competition and bring life saving drugs to market faster.

  • @quinnrasta Saying … @quinnrasta Saying the market regulates the Drug Industry is like saying that Methamphetamine is regulated because it kills people sometimes. You act as if there is a lot of competition among drug companies; there isn’t. In a market where they’re aren’t many alternatives, do you really want to wait until people die? And no, the FDA is not perfect, but neither is the market.

  • @beretboy22 The … @beretboy22 The market regulates the Drug industry, if VIOX is killing people then the makers would be sued and the drug taken off the shelf… oh wait a minute it was regulated and approved by the FDA and did kill people and the people sued the drug manufacturer and it is no longer being sold.Drug companies don’t do well by killing their customers. I could go on and on about the regulation of the drug industry, unless of course you are talking about pot and cocaine.

  • @beretboy22
    Honestly, the only people that CAN regulate IE have the knowledge in order to decide if another is doing the right thing, are people with the same experience/education. I know this in engineering. Drugs would not go straight to market, they would still be tested and their results would be published and peer reviewed before a doctor would consider starting to use it.

  • @beretboy22
    Honestly, the only people that CAN regulate IE have the knowledge in order to decide if another is doing the right thing, are people with the same experience/education. I know this in engineering. Drugs would not go straight to market, they would still be tested and their results would be published and peer reviewed before a doctor would consider starting to use it.

  • @mikerowphone Those … @mikerowphone Those deaths are correlated to, not caused by lack of health insurance. Only if those people were turned away from essential care because of lack of insurance could it be considered under causation.

  • @Thatmakessense356 … @Thatmakessense356 “American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States associated with uninsurance.” — This is from a 2009 study done by Harvard.

  • @mikerowphone … @mikerowphone People don’t die in America because of lack of health insurance. If you go to any emergency room YOU WILL BE TREATED. ANY EMERGENCY ROOM. Do you think if the government stole less of people’s money they would have the available funds to help treat each other’s diseases? Just watch a few episodes of Stossel and you’ll hopefully understand.

  • @mikerowphone No … @mikerowphone No he’s not trying to make a valid point nor are you. The definition of “bar exam” is not “something that ensures a lawyer is useful” it’s “something you have to pass to sell certain legal services”. Nothing about passing a bar exam ensures that your lawyer is competent to defend you against criminal charges, tort claims or anything else. Bar exam simplhy test for an arbitrary level of general legal knowledge not what is neccesary for any particular legal task.

  • @mikerowphone No, I … @mikerowphone No, I don’t care about what academic credentials a lawyer has or if he has any. What I care about is that he provides needed services. The bar exam does nothing to ensure this, as witness the massive number of low-paid or entirely unemployed lawyers that miamirider noted. The bar exam does not ensure a lawyer is fit to represent somebody in that state’s jurisdiction, it ensure that the lawyer an pass a bar exam. It doesn’t show he is worth hiring for any particular legal task.

  • Your arguement … Your arguement about the bar examination taking too long and acting as a bottleneck, slowing the flood of new lawyers into the markets, well… So what?

    Do you not agree that if a lawyer would have to take on a seperate set of curriculum for every single state he/she wanted to practice in, the price would surely go up anyways? Perhaps even more?

    Regardless of where the buck gets passed, it HAS to be paid or the quality will decrease and risk will increase with it, right?

  • @newperve haha, not … @newperve haha, not that I agree with “miamirider”‘s childish name calling of you, he’s at least ATTEMPTING to make a valid point.

    The Bar examination, by definition, ensures that the lawyer is indeed useful, as he’s not trying to defend you in court using a law that does not apply in your state. That would get your case lost when a more competent lawyer would have known otherwise… How do you ensure this without actually putting your life on the line? An examination, of course! :)

  • @newperve You’re … @newperve You’re trying to argue that the “bar exam” is secondary to the lawyer’s academic curriculum… That’s pretty misleading.

    Lets remember what precisely the “bar exam” is, now… A “bar exam” is an examination administered by each individual STATE that ensures said lawyer is fit to represent somebody in that state’s jurisdiction… This is fundamental in a Republic, since a State can over-rule Federal laws with their own laws… Thus fundamentally changing the landscape in court.

  • @Thatmakessense356 … @Thatmakessense356 The idea that the world is such a great place that if you’re poor and need medical treatment you cannot afford, some charity will help you…. That’s a load of dreamer-talk.

    Statistics disagree with your dream, I’m afraid. People die every single day for lack of health insurance. Might wanna look into the statistics before selling us a dream.

  • @iansimcox … @iansimcox Interesting!

    Canada somewhat works in this way. We all pay income tax, but at the end of the year the low-income working families get back typically more than they paid all year, in affect recieving a large chunk of money back to them. They then spend it into their local economy.

    We also have a welfare programme that further supplements that income tax adjustment, though..

    AND we have the government programs, too, such as government Hospitals. Interesting!

  • Oh my goodness. The … Oh my goodness. The very last part about this video is key!!

    Most times I’ve heard Friedman speak it conveniently leaves out that side of his arguement.

    Interesting! A negative income tax for the poor so that they can spend it the way they see fit and keep up the cycle of choice. Very interesting.

    I’ve always been fundamentally opposed to the veiws of Friedman on this basis alone, that if you’re poor you simply cannot choose and therefor the cycle breaks down but, hrmm, interesting! :)

  • @Koba1t Easy answer … @Koba1t Easy answer is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Suppose for a moment you had some kind of disaster in life and ended up with nothing.No money, no job.Then assume that despite your best efforts,you are unable for a month or two to get another job.How would you live? Now I suppose the ultimate laissez-faire answer is charities-if people feel strongly about providing for the poor then they will donate their untaxed money freely.

  • @OhmgrownCron … @OhmgrownCron Negative income tax is a simple tax & benefit system that combines a minimum payment with a flat tax.So if you earn (e.g.) $20k you may pay $10k in tax BUT also you receive $8k as minimum payment,so you end up with $8k + $20 – $10k = $18k.What Friedman is saying is that the minimum payment (the $8k above) should include enough money for someone with no income to be able to purchase their own healthcare insurance.No need for government to provide a program,just provide the money.

  • he said give ppl … he said give ppl welfare so they can buy overpriced private healthcare. no price controls!! what a joke! single payer system ftw

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>