Your example fails in that you do not seem to look at the issue of higher ed as an investment that pays off over time. Not to mention taking out the fact that many more students who would have gone to the U of O have not, opting to go other places because it’s cheaper or because the other programs are better.

That, my friend, is the free market. It always works, even if you wish it not to.

Tim:

Eh, no matter to me. I prefer firing a Browning .50 into my opponents, anyways.

I think we can agree that if this were the case, there would be fewer students at U of O, because tuition would be higher.

Maybe, maybe not, you have to look at removing the subsidy of Federal student loans/financial aid because that is a key factor in creating excess demand and pushing the price up. Remove the mitigating factor only, that is the state money from the school’s operating budget and you’re going to see an increase, yeah, but in a completely free market there wouldn’t be the demand side issue either.

Also keep in mind that the UO is not subject to the same sort of budgetary and competitive pressures that a private-sector entity is subject to. There’s no bottom line, no shareholders who will be pissed if you over run costs for the quarter and miss your EPS target by a few cents. That sort of incentive structure is important to make a market have the properties we might like. As to healthcare, well, very complicated and most people are so damned emotional about it…my position is that it’s mostly a third-party payer problem coupled with a lot of your standard public choice crap.

Sakaki - I would suggest that shouting DEMAND KURVE as loudly as you can isn’t very effective.

Here’s an example: a free market approach to higher education would have the University of Oregon receive no money from the State - students’ tuition would be determined entirely by the equilibrium of supply of professors and the demand from students. I think we can agree that if this were the case, there would be fewer students at U of O, because tuition would be higher. What would be the implications of that? Educated people make more money and sustain a higher standard of living. They are also less likely to commit crime, more likely to educate their children, etc. Those things help you, Sakaki: the Oregon economy is better, jobs pay more, goods and cheaper, and crime is more scarce. In other words, Sakaki, you pays taxes to help offset tuition at U of O, and in doing so you help students get an education which helps them *and helps you.*

I know its not on topic for the healthcare post, but my example still speaks to whether the free market “always works.” To address the healthcare issue, I recommend you take Prof. Robin McKnight’s “Economics of Healthcare” class this spring term. You’ll learn a lot, and come out a changed person.

We do have the technology to do just that. The problem is one of distribution. It’s much easier for people to get the food they need when they’re not living under corrupt and oppressive governments (or some kind of anarchic “warlord” situation).

In my case, it’s because I know where to shop for good medical care, how to shop for good medical care, and make connections in order to get better care at a cheaper rate. The problem is that people are unwilling to look for the help that is needed. For instance, someone can go to a place like the White Bird Clinic and get just as good of preventative maintenance done than to a 1,000 dollar per visit clinic. But they have to be willing to actually go out and look for the people who do such a thing.

This is one of the big reasons why I am a huge proponent of the country doctor, the doctor in the small town, who practices preventative medicine that works.

In other words: Your healthcare woes are not my problem. If you want better healthcare, work for it. Don’t expect it to be handed to you, or for me to pay it for you. If I did, it would only be after I win the lottery.

Ford - You are not a very good troll.

I don’t see how universal health care would jeopardize the health care people already have if they want to continue paying for it (ie, you can utilize the low cost US Postal Service, or pay more for faster/better service through a courier like FedEx or UPS.)

How is the free market working for this? I’ll even use myself as an example. College educated (and Republican, mind you) parents with a college educated daughter (me). I worked my ass off and got a good job (after MONTHS of searching because just a four year degree isnt’ really enough to get me a good job, good thing I am planning on law school later!) at a law firm. Now, my boss even pays my health care premium! I am very fiscally responsible, but between rent, utilities, student loan payments, car insurance, car payments (yes I pay for these things all by myself, no help from mommy and daddy!) I still can’t afford the doctor visits I need. Neither can my parents even if they wanted to help me. I won’t get really personal with what specific medical needs I have, but they are pretty urgent and none of them are my “fault” (I work out religiously and eat very healthy foods, and they aren’t injuries). Yeah, the free market will take care of me…

The free market ALWAYS works.

I’m not much of a church goer but if keeping my my rights protected from the influence of other men involved a witch doctor, wiccan, and voodoo lady then sprinkle me with fairy dust and sign me up.

Shadow points out the obvious but obscured. We already have such a right just not a right to have others pay for it.