Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market? » Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?

Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?
Is it ethical to exclude certain goods from the free market?

Page: 1 2 3

Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?

JagerJagger
It Is What It Is

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2006
Location: New Jack City

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/12/09 - 06:16 PM: Subject: Should Certain Goods Be Excluded From the Free Market?	#1
In the US, one of the big arguments surrounding health care is that the health industry, in order to be effective, MUST be a profit-oriented business as profit is the only way quality can be maintained. I don't believe this is an absolute truth - although it is in a lot of cases. So, starting from the point that not every good or service needs to be profit-oriented in order to maintain quality , are there goods that ought to be excluded from the free market/profit-creating sector? I am especially wondering about health care, drugs, prostitution, and weapons (both small weapons and big, war weapons).
"The people saw the opening and rushed for it euphorically." - Paul

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/12/09 - 11:59 PM:	#2
JagerJagger wrote: So, starting from the point that not every good or service needs to be profit-oriented in order to maintain quality , are there goods that ought to be excluded from the free market/profit-creating sector? er.. Yes. 1. Palm reading should be offered on a donation basis only. 2. Holy water from miraculous groto and virgin mary should be free. 3. Dating service should be based on mutual respect and attraction not how much a man pays to see his match. 4. Fellatio should be based on the mutual desire of the giver and receiver. 5. Poems and music should be free.

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 120

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/14/09 - 03:42 AM:	#3
Hi, Jagerjagger I think your statement that many feel that goods and services need to be in the free market to be of quality is questionable at best. The free market gives cheap often enough, and provides goods that match the customers' requirements, mostly. But as to quality? Bought any ginsu knives lately? Should some goods and services such as healthcare be kept out of the free market, i.e. state run and socialised? That's surely a question for each individual country to decide. There are advantages to socialising healthcare, not least that it should, in theory, provide healthcare for all, even those who can't afford it. Of course on the down side it means that those who don't need the services so much are effectively subsidising those who do. On the other hand one of the things I truly hate about private health insurance, is that its only affordable when you don't need it, i.e. young. When you get older and need those hip replacements, you're also usually retired and unable to pay the premiums, plus it automatically discriminates against people born with health problems. So sir you were born with cystic fibrosis. Of course we'll cover you. Your premiums will be about 1 million per year and anything related to your cystic fibrosis we'll consider a pre-existing condition and won't cover! On the other hand state sponsored health care also tends to remove the onus of personal responsibility. So you're a smoker sir and you have lung cancer - yes of course we'll give you a lung transplant. As for the cost issues, I suspect the US health system wouldn't be so overpriced and inefficient if it wasn't for litigation. Its not an easy question to answer. Cheers.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 10/14/09 - 05:31 AM:	#4
The claim that quality will be assured if there is a free market in operation is a FALSE one. Go to any major "super" market (or mall) and look at some of the furniture, clothes, shoes, electrical equipment/ appliances, you will see that (depending on the store of course) that the goods are pretty shoddy, and sold at a cheap price, and often at the expense of quality. Many things are required for goods to be "quality", and we would each have our own "tick-the-box" as what constitutes quality, but as I say, the claim that quality requires a free market is clearly a false one, although a claim that is ubiquitous and strongly held in many slave-going societies.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

JagerJagger
It Is What It Is

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2006
Location: New Jack City

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/14/09 - 10:05 AM:	#5
psychotick wrote: Hi, Jagerjagger I think your statement that many feel that goods and services need to be in the free market to be of quality is questionable at best. The free market gives cheap often enough, and provides goods that match the customers' requirements, mostly. But as to quality? Bought any ginsu knives lately? I said I don't believe free market = quality is an absolute truth, but I disagree with you when you say many people do not think a free market = quality. I think many do - at least here in the US. psychotick wrote: Should some goods and services such as healthcare be kept out of the free market, i.e. state run and socialised? That's surely a question for each individual country to decide. There are advantages to socialising healthcare, not least that it should, in theory, provide healthcare for all, even those who can't afford it. Of course on the down side it means that those who don't need the services so much are effectively subsidising those who do. On the other hand one of the things I truly hate about private health insurance, is that its only affordable when you don't need it, i.e. young. When you get older and need those hip replacements, you're also usually retired and unable to pay the premiums, plus it automatically discriminates against people born with health problems. So sir you were born with cystic fibrosis. Of course we'll cover you. Your premiums will be about 1 million per year and anything related to your cystic fibrosis we'll consider a pre-existing condition and won't cover! On the other hand state sponsored health care also tends to remove the onus of personal responsibility. So you're a smoker sir and you have lung cancer - yes of course we'll give you a lung transplant. As for the cost issues, I suspect the US health system wouldn't be so overpriced and inefficient if it wasn't for litigation. Its not an easy question to answer. Cheers. I think I more or less agree with you. As for public policy, maybe a mixed system, like France and Japan have, is best. I won't pretend like I know the answer because even professionals who study this topic all day long for a living don't have the answer, but since the French and Japanese tend to be ranked at the top of health care ratings, seems like they're on to something. However, I am questioning the ethical value of keeping something like health care a profit-driven product. Is it wrong to "profit" off surgeries people need? When there is profit involved, there is inherently a price that is greater than necessary. It's literally profiting off the sick. Looked at that way, it appears that it would be ethically wrong. But if profit is, in most cases and for most people, the main driving force to obtain quality, then it could be said that keepiong health care profit-driven is ethical because it ensures quality.
"The people saw the opening and rushed for it euphorically." - Paul

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 10/14/09 - 12:57 PM:	#6
For profit health care in the US was, until recently not the way health care was delivered. While there have always been some for profit health care insurers and providers the market was dominated by non-profits. It is only over the last 20 years or so that for profit health care has become a dominant feature of the US health care landscape. Blue Cross Blue Shield was a non-profit company for most of its existence and the great majority of hospitals were non-profit community or religious institutions. The beginning of the rapid rise of health care costs in the US was coincident with the growth of the for-profit providers and insurers who now dominate the health care market. The biggest problem with health care costs is the fee for service reimbursement model. For profit providers maximize services to maximize fees and increase profits. Insurers basically are happy to pass these on since higher fees make for higher premiums and greater revenue for them. There is no possible way to rein in health care costs without changing to another model. One model that can be adopted is pay per subscriber. Providers are required to take all comers and are paid a fee for each subscriber to their services. The fee is determined by modeling historical data of the cost of providing services to a generalized regional demographic comparable to their subscriber base. More old people nets a higher basic fee. More young people nets a lower basic fee. Once adjusted for regional and age related demographics the fee is the same for every subscriber. This prevents a provider from cherry picking their subscriber base while also allowing them the resources to provide appropriate services and make a profit. The healthy, who rarely need service, are how the provider covers the cost of servicing those who need greater services and provide the profit. Mandatory health insurance is necessary for this to work. Outcomes are closely tracked and providers can be fined if their standard of care falls below the norm or rewarded if it is better. In this model the provider has every incentive to provide appropriate care and adopting preventive care measures and long term management protocols for chronic illness so they can avoid the high costs of the emergency room and long term hospitalization which will directly bite into their revenue. If they provide less than stellar services their subscribers will flee and their revenue and profits will suffer. A well managed provider group has plenty of room to make money in this model without skimping on care. There is also room for insurers to make money in this model. It does not require a single payer, just a single reimbursement model. Like providers insurers would be required to take all comers and guarantee a high level of care. Insurance providers would also be required to publish their fee structure for both subscribers and providers in a public freely accessible database. The base subscriber fee would be set by the market. Insurance premiums would be set by the market. The health care market would become transparent and costs would decline while service improves for more people.

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 128

Posted 10/14/09 - 03:00 PM:	#7
First, there is nothing wrong with profit, but what we should be considering is efficency. My position is pretty straight forward. There are certain goods and services that are great for markets and some that are great public; some are better for large firms, some are better for small; some are better incorporated, and others are better co-operative. These differences are not arbitary. There are logical, analytical rules for what type of good or service deserves what type of producer. For example, large corporations are good as oil companies because of necessary economies of scale and large capital investment. Farms make great co-ops because their goods are usually homogenous (eg. a milk co-op). Defence is best done by government because the gains are non-rival and non-excludable. And so on. In the case of Health Care, the question is insurance. This is what we know: everyone needs or will need health care, and thus insurance; Insurance is homogenous - you pay a premium and recieve benifits when needed in the form of money; insurance is a risk pooling arangement -- the only way to lower costs is to lower risk and the only way to lower risk (without malicious discrimination) is to expand the pool, therefore the optimal pool is everyone. These are some of the reasons social security is a public good, and they apply just as well to health insurance. I still think private firms can deliever health care quite well, but the insurance end is usually much more efficient in a "single payer" model for the reasons above.
theham88@gmail.com

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 10/14/09 - 11:21 PM:	#8
JagerJagger wrote: However, I am questioning the ethical value of keeping something like health care a profit-driven product. Is it wrong to "profit" off surgeries people need? When there is profit involved, there is inherently a price that is greater than necessary. It's literally profiting off the sick. Looked at that way, it appears that it would be ethically wrong. So, by the same argument, it is wrong for supermarket stores, roadside stores, farmers, etc. to make a profit off their produce and food products since most, if not all, people buy food for sustenance? Is it wrong to profit from sustenance needs of society? How about apartment buildings that are designated government subsidized, meaning the tenants get part or all of the rent money from the government paid to the owner of the apartment? Is it wrong to profit from shelter needs of society?

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/15/09 - 12:07 AM:	#9
The following need to be social services, not a product/service in a free market system: 1. Education (Education must be FOC, educational grants should be granted to institutes producing the highest number of graduates, and based on the average performances of such students. All private education providers should either be government-aided and checked, or be closed.) 2. Healthcare (Medical services should not be profited from and companies seeking to profit from such critical services and products need to be taxed) 3. Social Security (as President Bush almost privatized it, it's a government service) The following need to be filtered from market economy: 1. Drugs/Alcohol/Cigarettes (Terrible opportunity costs for consumers) - I bet they wouldn't allow Philip Morris to adopt it's business model had it begun today, Morris had time on their side. 2. Flesh Trade (Social repercussions, long-term costs to the social structure and education) 3. Credit grants for spending (Limiting spending on credit, better control over consumer spending and savings, no risks such as potential toxic assets). Spend only what you have, nothing more (excluding housing and other similar important goods/services that should be subsidized by the government). ** The above if only a government is able and of high standards. Edited by Desidude666 on 10/15/09 - 12:14 AM
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Teco
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 10/15/09 - 05:28 AM:	#10
Desidude666 wrote: The following need to be social services, not a product/service in a free market system: 1. Education (Education must be FOC, educational grants should be granted to institutes producing the highest number of graduates, and based on the average performances of such students. All private education providers should either be government-aided and checked, or be closed.) 2. Healthcare (Medical services should not be profited from and companies seeking to profit from such critical services and products need to be taxed) 3. Social Security (as President Bush almost privatized it, it's a government service) The following need to be filtered from market economy: 1. Drugs/Alcohol/Cigarettes (Terrible opportunity costs for consumers) - I bet they wouldn't allow Philip Morris to adopt it's business model had it begun today, Morris had time on their side. 2. Flesh Trade (Social repercussions, long-term costs to the social structure and education) 3. Credit grants for spending (Limiting spending on credit, better control over consumer spending and savings, no risks such as potential toxic assets). Spend only what you have, nothing more (excluding housing and other similar important goods/services that should be subsidized by the government). ** The above if only a government is able and of high standards.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.