And of the big problems in medicine - a prescription for glasses (which isn’t really a medical service in the US - optometry is not a medical profession) just doesn’t register for me - you can order glasses online without a prescription if you are so inclined.
Meanwhile there isn’t any realistic libertarian solution to allocation or access to complex medical care - and just hand waving “free markets” doesn’t make it so.
Contacts would certainly be much cheaper without that hurdle.
And I bring up vision, because it's a common problem and for less well off folk with families it can be a big expense, basically entirely unnecessarily so. Imagine making 20k/year and you have to pay $500-$1000 a year for vision correction for your family. That's 2.5-5% of your pretax compensation
There's no handwaving here. Competitive markets require complete information. Information about costs to the consumer is basically entirely opaque. Over 90% of medical costs are non emergency, so if people could comparison shop, costs would go down. Also requires skin in the game (e.g. marginal cost per visit).
Look at plastic surgery for a good example of how free market/non insurance based medicine can fare. Many procedures are quite cheap, and while many are still expensive, much cheaper than necessary medical care covered by insurance. Also the number of doctors is still limited by the AMA, so even this is not fully competitive. There's an arbitrary cap on number of providers
This is an old trope but hasn’t even been superficially true for years. The AMA does not have the authority to limit the number of doctors. In any event their political influence has become less and less relevant for decades now, so even their ability to influence the number of docs is quite limited - I am not even am AMA member - I was only during medical school to get discounts on test prep. I don’t believe most of my peers are AMA members either - they belong to their specialist groups. Meanwhile the number of medical schools and students in the US has increased substantially in part due to AMA and AAMC. Meanwhile internal medicine residencies still have to fill their ranks with imported talent (foreign medical graduates) - only the lucrative subspecialties are the ones that remain limited and competitive. There are also forces at work to limit the number of MD jobs available that have nothing to do with the supply of MDs (replacement of positions with midlevels). The limit on residency positions is a partisan federal funding issue going on for years and only recently has much headway been made.
On eye care, I can of course self prescribe but even so for contact lenses I usually end up purchasing overseas from reputable retailers because of the price fixing of contact lenses - and I’ve never been asked for a prescription. It’s not that hard to get eyewear without a prescription.
But please link me to a US site where I can legally buy contacts without providing proof of prescription, if there is one!
Fully free markets can lead to negative externalities like monopolies, pollution etc.
What leads to good societal outcomes is competitive markets. It just happens that free and competitive overlap a lot of the time. Information hiding makes a market less competitive, but is permitted under a full free market mentality. This is an area where regulations are warranted and useful.
Competitive capitalism should be the goal for most areas in modern society. Which in almost all cases only requires light regulation.
Combine education and free access to everything with reasonable daily unit limits and per-substance licensing. You want meth, you go through meth safety training and get a yearlong endorsement allowing you to buy up to the daily limit at a pharmacy, no prescription involved.
Set up due process that limits or eliminates legal access to substances based on criminal or medical situations.
Drug abuse - using in inappropriate situations leading to misbehavior - can be treated as a medical issue. Misbehavior that rises to the level of criminality is already handled.
It's absurd to think that any adult in a free country has any business whatsoever telling other adults what they can ingest or do in private.
Some variation on these notions are already demonstrated across the world. The current schedule system and drug laws in America serve only the bad guys, whether it's commercial prison slave labor, drug cartels, big Pharma, or the alphabet jackboots.
I believe they were referring to the snake oil craze of the 19th century, not prohibition:
> The term comes from the "snake oil" that used to be sold as a cure-all elixir for many kinds of physiological problems. Many 19th-century United States and 18th-century European entrepreneurs advertised and sold mineral oil (often mixed with various active and inactive household herbs, spices, drugs, and compounds, but containing no snake-derived substances whatsoever) as "snake oil liniment", making claims about its efficacy as a panacea. Patent medicines that claimed to be a panacea were extremely common from the 18th century until the 20th, particularly among vendors masking addictive drugs such as cocaine, amphetamine, alcohol and opium-based concoctions or elixirs, to be sold at medicine shows as medication or products promoting health.
