[WS:] I think it depends how you argue it. You may argue it from a "market failure" perspective which is still an integral part of of "standard" pro-market wisdom. The argument is that in case of "public goods" i.e. goods that are non-excludable and non-rival, markets do not do well because delivery of such goods is not contingent on payments for it. An alternative argument goes that in case of information asymmetry between provider and recipient - which is always the case of "third-party payments" (i.e. insurance) - there is always a potential for fraud and thus substandard performance of the market.
It is quite possible to convincingly argue that health care is both a public good in the sense defined above i.e. non-rival and non-excludable for both practical and ethical reasons, and involves considerable information asymmetry - especially when it it involves three-party transactions. It would therefore follow from the standard "market theory" that it needs to be financed publicly and delivered by a public or quasi-public entity. It is also possible to empirically demonstrate the lack of efficiency of the market system in health care delivery by cross-national comparisons.
The main point is that you can use the standard theory of market behavior to make a valid case for a public health system. But the fact also remains that such an argument would fall on deaf ears in this country, because all this "free market" mantra is merely a diversion and the cover up of the gangster nature of the US-style capitalism. What really matters is political connections and patronage, not economic efficiency, and even less so convincing arguments. These folks will not yield to any arguments, no matter how convincing, they will only yield to force.
Wojtek
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Joanne Landy <joanne.landy at igc.org> wrote:
>> Below is the comment I posted on Facebook after seeing the YouTube of Joseph
>> Stiglitz and Jeff Madrick speaking at the Wall Street Occupation:
>
>>
>> I watched most of this, and enjoyed the jovial and relaxed presentations.
>> But I didn't agree with Stiglitz's apparent argument that if we only had
>> "real" capitalism things would be ok. Though of course we have to try to
>> regulate the Wall Street highway robbers, the corrupt "distortions" of the
>> system are endemic since those with hugely disproportionate economic power
>> will always be able to distort the political regulatory process in their
>> favor. That's why we need socialism.
>>
>> --Joanne
>
> A good point. Dean Baker does the same thing even with regard to other
> left-liberals. That is he makes some really good arguments about how
> we really have a conservative nanny state biased in favor of the rich
> and to a lesser extent the top tier of professionals. But then he
> argues that it is "loser liberalism" to criticize markets at all ,
> that liberals should argue that strong regulation and single payer
> health and so forth are the "real" free market policies. I think
> defending policies that really are NOT market policies on grounds that
> they are somehow free market is a mistake on two grounds. It is not
> true, and not true in a way that is obvious. Single Payer would indeed
> make capitalism work better, but not because single payer is in any
> way a market solution. And it is ignoring one of the few real bits of
> wisdom in the whole framing debate, which is that it is a mistake to
> advance a position on grounds that advance a larger story that
> undermines it. Joining the drumbeat of "markets uber alles" even to
> advance genuinely left policies is the real loser liberalism.
>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow
> Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598
> Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>