top of page

The advantages of a free-market healthcare system


The debate between a free-market healthcare system and a socialised Medicare system is one steeped in complexity, touching on the very essence of human life and well-being. To dissect the advantages of a free-market healthcare system and the inherent costs, particularly in human lives, associated with socialised medicine, including the rise in iatrogenic death rates following its implementation, one only needs to look at the facts. The discourse draws upon various intellectual traditions in economics, psychology, and security, using real-world examples, primarily from Australia, while maintaining analytical rigour.

In a free-market healthcare system, competition is the primary driving force. This competition spurs innovation as healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies strive to offer better services and products. A poignant example is the development of groundbreaking medical technologies in Australia's private sector. These innovations have not only enhanced the quality of healthcare but have also made treatments more accessible over time. These include the cochlear implant and a range of plant-based medications and oils.

One of the most significant advantages of a free-market system is the empowerment of consumers. Patients have the freedom to choose their healthcare providers, fostering an environment where providers are incentivized to improve service quality and patient satisfaction. This patient-centric approach leads to better health outcomes, as seen in the higher survival rates for various diseases in private healthcare systems compared to their socialised counterparts.

Free-market systems tend to be more efficient in resource allocation. In Australia, private healthcare providers have demonstrated a higher degree of efficiency in managing resources compared to public hospitals, leading to shorter wait times and more prompt medical attention. However, the combining of public and private practises, as seen in the Adeliade Hospital, has a devastating effect on care, patient survival, and satisfaction. When bureaucratic unaccountability intervenes in private practise, it leaves a visible stain.

Socialised Medicare systems, while well-intentioned, come with significant costs, some of which are measured in human lives. The centralisation and bureaucratisation inherent in these systems lead to inefficiencies and a one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare, which may not always align with individual patient needs. It becomes rationed care, not the best care available. A concerning aspect of socialised medicine is the increase in iatrogenic death rates—deaths caused by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures. In such systems, the high patient-to-doctor ratios and the overstretched healthcare infrastructure lead to medical errors and suboptimal care. This has been observed in various instances in Australia’s public healthcare system and was cited in the 2019 UK NHS report, which has since been completely censored, where resource constraints and bureaucratic inefficiencies have compromised patient care. Another critical issue with socialised medicine is the stifling of innovation. The lack of competitive pressure leads to complacency and a reduced incentive for medical innovation. This scenario has played out in various countries with socialised systems, where the rate of medical advancements has lagged behind that of countries with more market-oriented healthcare systems. An instance of a modern deficiency is the absence of three-dimensional X-ray technology, which is prevalent in developing nations around the globe, including Asia, but is uncommon in Australia. The most profound cost of socialised medicine is, arguably, the human cost. Beyond the metrics of efficiency and innovation lies the fundamental issue of human lives—lives that are lost due to the inherent inefficiencies and limitations of a one-size-fits-all ration-based healthcare system. The delays in treatment, the lack of customised care, and the potential for medical errors—all these factors contribute to a system where the ultimate price is paid in human lives. While no healthcare system is without its flaws, the evidence suggests that a free-market healthcare system offers numerous advantages over a socialised Medicare system. These benefits include greater efficiency, improved quality of care, enhanced innovation, and, most importantly, better health outcomes for patients. The costs of socialised medicine, particularly in terms of human lives and the increase in iatrogenic deaths, present a compelling case for the adoption of a more market-oriented approach to healthcare. As with any complex societal issue, the choice between these two systems is not just a matter of economic or political ideology, but a decision that fundamentally affects human lives and well-being. Note: I have had extensive interactions with the Australian healthcare system, working in mental health facilities and local hospitals, and through the medical emergencies faced by my clients, my wife, my prosthetic-wearing son, and my personal experiences. I rewrote this several times to effectively disengage the horrors I have experienced and give a clear logical and analytical analysis.

I'm able to cite statistics, which you can find easily on the ABS site, and observational reporting. However, it's not a narrative; it's an article, one I hope motivates greater discourse. From the author. The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam consults or contracts with. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced security consultant with almost three decades of expertise in the fields of real estate, security, and the hospitality and gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.

13 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page