> Right, so your city should operate an emergency room funded mostly by taxpayers, and then just charge a fixed deductible (e.g. $1000) for emergency care, which isn't enough to induce bankruptcy in general but is enough to deter people from using it in place of primary care
This is just a public option that covers little and without the bargaining power on price a state has versus a city, right? Why wouldn't the same logic go for a larger entity taking up the mantle? And if we treat only emergencies with the plan, we incentize poor people to ignore cheaper preventative care in the market based system, and to wait until it becomes an emergency that costs many multiples to fix.
> Dental isn't generally a market that requires insurance.
Also from that link, in practice most uninsured americans just don't seek dental care. This matches my personal experience of being uninsured.
The latter is probably not causal - poor Americans have no money for either insurance or dental care, whereas non-poor would pay for retail dental anyway, but they also mostly have insurance.
The end result is still broken for nearly a quarter of americans and could be fixed with state sponsored care. That dental care is tolerated to be this way is not a good argument for free markets in healthcare working, to me at least.
This is just a public option that covers little and without the bargaining power on price a state has versus a city, right? Why wouldn't the same logic go for a larger entity taking up the mantle? And if we treat only emergencies with the plan, we incentize poor people to ignore cheaper preventative care in the market based system, and to wait until it becomes an emergency that costs many multiples to fix.
> Dental isn't generally a market that requires insurance.
Also from that link, in practice most uninsured americans just don't seek dental care. This matches my personal experience of being uninsured.