In the pursuit of market-based changes in health care, it is important to pay attention to proposals that are both fundamental and smaller, but represent a step in the right direction. The former category can include the radical deregulation of health care by abolishing monopolistic institutions like the AMA or FDA. The latter includes reducing or eliminating fraud and waste in the government’s Medicaid and Medicare programs.

Would medical care be available to people who might have a difficult time paying for it? In a private property order, charitable institutions would play an important role in ensuring more people have access to medical treatment.

I became interested in the question of whether a true market in healthcare can work. I think it is a fantastically interesting subject. It has been the focus of my PhD work.

Enrollment in government-subsidized “Obamacare” health insurance programs is expanding—and that is not a good thing. As more people place demands on the medical system, that system is increasingly unable to handle the growing demand.

Progressives claim that state-sponsored healthcare systems are superior to market-based systems. Their arguments don’t add up.
Original Article: Markets versus State Healthcare Systems: Some Points of Contention

In discussions concerning improving access to medical services, the question of increasing public expenditure—along with introducing new technologies or further regulations—is often raised. These and other proposals are oriented toward public solutions as if a market-based alternative was completely groundless. However, market-based solutions may not only be a “complement” to public systems, but they may also have the potential to be used on an even-larger scale—to entirely replace public systems. To make this possible, it is necessary to resolve several misconceptions about the two systems that limit the discussion of possible changes and their effects.
The Public System Is “Free,” Which Makes It a Better Option
At first glance, the allure of “gratuitousness” is tempting. Medical services

Despite the numerous permanent problems faced by public healthcare systems, a significant number of people (such as citizens, politicians, and doctors) still seem to deem them necessary and believe that the problems associated with them can be solved by, for example, better management, increased expenditure, or central planning. Therefore, in this essay, the main arguments in favor of a gradual departure from public systems will be presented alongside the benefits of (unhampered) market solutions.
1. The Public System Overly Restricts the Role of the Consumer
In the market, despite the important role of entrepreneurs and capitalists, it is the consumer who is the most important link. In the economic sense, the whole process and organization of the production structure is subordinated to

Insurance is a market institution—i.e., it emerged through voluntary exchange aiming at satisfying the needs of the parties involved. Private health insurance should not be mistaken for public health insurance, which constitutes an element of a state’s social policy. They differ to such a great extent that one can even claim that the latter is a contradiction of the former. This essay will show the most notable differences between them.