Idiots abound, time is limited. Praxeologically derived answer: ignore them.
And his response to me:
"“Under a government plan, these would be impossible.” No they wouldn’t. The government plan is meant to be an alternative for people who choose to “opt-in.” To me this is seriously silly, but it already exists (USPS vs. UPS and FedEx).
As far as a “panel of experts,” you are absolutely right. This is a very classical economic argument. No matter how brilliant a certain group of people are, no matter how fast they can think and come to perfect decisions, it’s impossible for them to be omniscient of everyone’s situation everywhere, and every factor that contributes to it.
However, I do feel that with the increasing power of computers, information processing has the potential to be much more efficient than it is now.
Government regulation may be contributing to the problem. But removing it could cause problems. The modern paradigm is “the market is always the answer,” but if you look at Russia’s post communist transition, a reckless embrace of capitalism, without the proper institutions in place (by institutions I mean legal, political, or social ones - not just government bureaus).
Regulation increases certain costs (the cost of making and selling drugs), but also reduces other costs (transaction costs, information search costs - it is generally safe to take drugs doctors prescribe because it is necessary that experimental research prove drugs to be reasonably safe).
There is an optimal amount of regulation at any point in time, although time is continuous and policy decisions occur at discrete intervals. So also, part of constrained optimization is determining the correct time to implement policy decisions.
Less regulation is always theoretically favorable, but it is agreed by most economists that certain state intervention is necessary to even create the conditions for competitive markets"
I’m too tired to respond to him today, but you can have fun with his comments if you please.
Ask for the equation and its parametres that determines this then bombard the bozo with Mises’s calculation argument. There is no survival. Sorry, no computers no matter how “super” will rescue socialism. Sob, cry, wail, throw a fit &c. &c.
Human desires are unlimited but resources are scarce, therefore decisions must be made, i.e., we must economize. No law or social order will never change that truism.
When I said “sufficient” I meant sufficient to convince people that the free market solution is superior. (Rather than keeping people “sufficiently” healthy, which I agree is impossible to define.)
Same thing regarding looking for historical comparisons, by accurately describing the historical context, it may be possible to describe a real life example of a “health care system” that is more free market than what we have today but which (here’s where the research is needed) functioned better than our current system. This is not to argue that health care was ever or will ever be “sufficient”, but to fully (sufficiently) convince the lay person that a free market in health care does not abandon the sick any more than our current system does.