<< Their stock reply to this argument would be that the markets
> can't deliver because of all the government interference
> in them through such means as Medicare, Medicaid, government
> regulation of health care, tax incentives for HMOs etc. A
> libertarian would argue that it is government intereference
> that has blocked the markets from doing thei job efficiently.
> I think that one could reply that perhaps the removal of
> all this government presence in health care might permit
> the markets to operate more efficiently but at the cost of
> depriving even more people of access to health care since
> it is after all more efficient for markets to deliver goods
> and services for those who got the bucks while withholding
> them from those without lucre. >>
The problem, I think, is not the interference of government, but the dominance of the market and market principles. The L's perception that the market would provide adequate access and quality of healthcare if not for the interference of government is preposterous. Government intervention, admittedly clumsy and ineffectual, is a response to the failure of *market forces* to provide basic services. *For profit* models fail in practice because of the drive for maximum profit. Healthcare, infrastructure, education and other basic social necessities that don't readily lend themselves to profitable exchange relations in the market come to beg for government subsidies ... for example HMO's dropping members because Medicare does not provide adequate subsidies for profitability.
I admit that the L's would suggest that the failure of market based solutions to social policy problems are the fault of government interference. But, ultimately, it is the inability of the *free market* to provide service, with or without government interference.
rp