Do you remember your free market principles @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

That’s quite simply not accurate. Increased regulation has lowered prices.

The problem with health insurance is it does not follow free market principles when deregulated

It doesn’t have perfect information, and people can’t send market signals after use

What private health insurance does is leaves a ton of people uninsured

And keeps people with pre-existing conditions from being insured

<studies this for a living

Yes, increased regulations like higher licensing requirements?
> Our analysis of insurance claims data shows that the more rigid regulations increase the price of a well-child medical exam by 3 to 16 %. However, our analysis finds no evidence that the changes in regulatory policy are reflected in outcomes such as infant mortality rates or malpractice premiums. Overall, our results suggest that these more restrictive state licensing practices are associated with changes in wages and employment patterns, and also increase the costs of routine medical care, but do not seem to influence health care quality.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w19906

Or maybe CON laws?
> Certificate-of-need (CON) laws disallow hospitals, nursing homes, ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), and other healthcare providers from entering new markets, expanding their practice, or making certain capital investments without first receiving approval from state regulators. These laws are currently in effect in 36 states. Over the past 40 years, CON laws have been justified as a way to achieve numerous public policy goals, such as controlling costs, increasing charity care, and protecting access to health care in rural communities by shielding hospitals from increased competition. However, the effects of CON laws on rural health care are not well understood. We examine the effect of entry regulation on ASCs and community hospitals and find that there are both more rural hospitals and more rural ambulatory surgical centers per capita in states without a CON program regulating the opening of an ASC. This finding indicates that CON laws may not be protecting access to rural health care, but are instead correlated with decreases in rural access.
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Stratmann-Rural-Health-Care-v1.pdf

Yikes maybe not.

Again, you just answer things tangential to the issue at hand

What regulation were you hinting at that lowers prices? I'll take a shot in the dark and point to the law that allows illegals to get away with uncompensated care?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
> According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[12] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[13] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.[13]

Gee maybe not...

The reason CON exists is because they spend state money

You’d think a conservative would be in favor of protecting coffers

It doesn't matter, we don't need them. They raise prices, lower access without increasing quality.

Lol

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard

Of course they don’t raise prices

What regulation were you hinting at that lowers prices? I'll take a shot in the dark and point to the law that allows illegals to get away with uncompensated care?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
> According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[12] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[13] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.[13]

THIS IS LITERALLY MY POINT

Yeah?

It's a regulation.

We need to repeal it.

Which is why I said I'm for private healthcare, fully.

It currently gets passed along to people with insurance

Yeah and hospital care in general.

It's a terrible law that has to go.

Right, so we’d just have a return to people with pre existing conditions not getting care

lol

Ok.

This isn't about pre-existing conditions.

Yes, if your goal is to have people dying in the streets and going bankrupt for medical expenses

Then yes, the system will be cheaper

I'm for deregulating healthcare, so that ends up with lower prices.

No, it doesnt😘

EMATAL being scraped is one method of it.

It leads to death spirals

The studies above will disagree with you.

They clearly do not

In fact you literally supported my point

Use your brain for 2 seconds