Agree.

I said as efficient as possible for a reason. Emphasis is on possible. There is a need to protect against monopolies, and there is a need to protect dissenting minorities. Anti-trust legislation covers the former, right to work covers the latter. Unions are fine when they cannot exercise monopolistic control over labor negotiations.

I have no objection to a public option in health-care, competition is good. Single-payer is bad. Establishing government monopolies is not a step to "open[ing] up the market".

Single payer does not eliminate competition. It's single payer, there are still private hospitals.

The U.K. is routinely ranked as the best medical system in the world, and always in the top 10 medical systems in the world, and is single payer. They have private hospitals that compete with each other.

So both in your description of single payer you are wrong, and in the reality of single payer you are wrong.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 6 2021 03:32pm

Single-payer by definition establishes a monopoly on pricing.

Competition is not wholly eliminated in any system. There is some measure of competition in Communism, albeit at an level that has unacceptable implications for economic growth. Your claim was that single-payer is prerequisite for an "open market". That is a contradiction.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Mar 6 2021 04:14pm

Single-payer establishes a ceiling on pricing, but there are other ways to compete. Quality, convenience, and other things can be selling points. Some areas you absolutely don't want competition, like emergency services, because there is no elasticity of demand and time is a necessity.

I'd prefer single payer, but I don't think that's the only way to "open up the market". You're still wrong on both points, competition lost through single payer doesn't remove quality and we have empirical data to show that. Taking it off of the employers plate is what needs to happen. Still though, even in Germany 77% of the funding comes through the government.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 6 2021 04:17pm

The philosophy of single payer:

"Corporations are bad so lets turn the government into a giant corporation except it also has no incentive to provide quality service."

Should be $100 an hour bigots.

i believe in 0 minimum wage. Your value to the world should reflect your income. Those demanding $24 p/h need to demonstrate that or be thankful they got a job by someone who is willing to pay them.
Otherwise i would like to see those that make such demands lead by example and provide the pay they so proclaim others should give them

exploitation is not cool but neither is mooching for getting payed for the value you haven't provided. These laws that force people to pay a higher minimum wage only force the employers to cut corners and to exploit their workers or customers in order to survive.
For example say there is a farmer who doesn't have a huge block of land who doesn't have the expensive farming equipment to justify low prices struggling to pay his workers and at the same time make some money for himself.
That farmer provides food to local outlets. Now socialist derps who sit in cities and sucking of social benefits decide to pass into law to increase the minimum wage. Well that same farmer now decides its not worth it and closes the business or raises the price of food. Welldone effectively shooting your own foot.

No one is forcing you with a gun to work for low wage. In today's society and resources available unless you live under a bridge in north korea have no excuses to provide value and get paid good money.

There are people mostly overseas minorities who are willing to work for less, and ofcourse the lazy entitled snowflakes are not happy cause they want to get paid while doing fuk all

This post was edited by addone on Mar 6 2021 10:26pm