Why? You can’t even build a hospital or practice medicine without government permission. It’s an industry ripe for regulatory capture.

Are you suggesting that less regulation would make healthcare better?

I think they're pointing out that heavily regulated industries are very easy to fall prey to regulatory capture, which benefits incumbents at the expense of users and those trying to enter the industry from outside. Healthcare in the US is nowhere close to a free market, so it seems perfectly reasonable to question the GP if it's asked in good faith (it's not).

> suggesting that less regulation would make healthcare better?

No, but more competition would. If we want to have private healthcare, we have to actually let free markets work. Our current system is the worst of both worlds.

> You can’t even build a hospital ... without government permission.

You are talking about Certificates of Need which are investigations to show that an area needs a new facility...

The concept of a CoN was lobbied for by hospitals and healthcare providers who wanted "guarantees" of profits before they'd commit to building new facilities. The CoN process helps existing facilities get a say in whether a new hospital should be allowed in the area. The government itself generally doesn't care.

I'm sure hospitals owned by private equities still have regulations and face little competition.

They just shouldn't exist.

It would be interesting to compare small private clinics performance vs hospitals.

It does if the government is not involved.

The most pure form of free-market is a black market. Without any government, the free market does not have a mechanism to prevent monopolies (AKA absolute winners). Further, many markets do not even exist without the government. EG: there is no Tesla without the department of Energy [1]. The housing market would be totally different without Freddie & Fannie Mae, the banking system would also be totally different without FDIC insurance.

Capitalism creates bubbles & winners (aka monopolies). Government has to be involved to keep an even playing field and to smooth out the bubbles. No industry in the US has had no government involvement. All industries are involved with government in some form - if only to enforce contract law, or for more physical matters like using public roads, buying electricity from government run electrical companies, benefitting regulation that requires phone providers to provide service, etc..

[1] https://www.energy.gov/lpo/tesla

Any actual data to prove that assertion?

How exactly does the market work without the government enforcing contracts and property rights?

Lots of cryptography and security guards?

So threat of violence? In other words, a defacto government?

The most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent. I imagine it would mostly be for defensive purposes and to protect employees but you never know.

> most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent.

Monopoly on violence requires enforcing that monopoly. Such a firm would also stomp out its competition. You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.

> You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.

Government run healthcare, the healthcare where you just go to the hospital and then you just get treated.. (?) Government run healthcare does not have a great reputation for doing cutting-edge health care, but on the other hand it does have a good reputation for taking care of people for basic needs. How is that describing a monopoly on violence? Repairing broken bones is the same as breaking bones? (If the implied argument is that health care is so heavily rationed, that people are left untreated, tantamount to violence, I would beg you to look at the statistics of which countries have more complications due to untreated illnesses (hint, the US is high on that list [1]; or we could look at health outcomes per dollar spent, US is very far down on that list, US spends multiples of other countries for the same outcome))

I would think a more apt description and example of a monopoly on violence would be narco-states. Otherwise the example is a well functioning government, and that is demonstrated in the police force and judicial system (not healthcare).

When considering the absence of the government monopoly on violence, drug markets are the closest thing there is to a true free-market. And yes, there contract enforcement is contingent upon a bunch of people standing behind you with guns.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-care-costs-americans-sk...

In your haste, I think you missed a key bit: “… by an unelected government.”

Or do you mean an unelected government has a good track record of meeting basic needs as well?

Thanks for considering the response. I did not quite miss that bit, it's a bit of a tangled web of nuances. Ultimately, I don't think it matters whether a government provides healthcare was elected or not relative to that _not_ being an example of government exerting a monopoly on violence.

For the good track record, I'm referring to governments like the UK, Norway, France & Canada that all have better health outcomes compared to the privatized healthcare system of the US. The US system tends to stand out for the very specialized cutting edge (and super expensive) procedures; though you still have to overcome a lot of accessibility problems to get that. At present day, if you break a bone, have a child [1], need to be in hospital for a few days - generally you're better off not in the US

[1] "Despite spending less on coverage, France has comparable or even better health care outcomes than the United States. The United States has a higher rate of infant mortality. In France nearly four children die out of every 1000 live births. In the U.S. that number is closer to six." https://healthchoiceofmichigan.com/lectorium/MHzUCToycks

[2] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/dutton.... This resource sites that France was ranked #1 back in 2001. While the US might have improved in that time, it goes to show it has been decades where the US is not the leader in healthcare. This implies that on average and for at least a couple decades running now, there are better outcomes in other countries (than the US). The dependent variable does seem to be how healthcare is financed, payed for, and how the profit incentive compares between those different places.

Sure but as a profitable company not accountable to customers, what stops them from giving poor service at a premium?

The customers would buy less of their services probably.

That implies having a choice to buy less or more of a service. Healthcare often does not give that choice.

Why would companies that claim their own monopolies on violence and have no laws to answer to other than their own allow customers to do so? What's to stop companies from blacklisting such customers or collaborating to fix prices?

What's being described here is what anarcho-capitalism and pure free markets always devolve into - the mafia. You don't get to just shop around for a better mafia if you don't like the one running your town.