yudantaiteki
good points, i agree that the free market isn't the best in dealing with long term effects of decisions, but I argue the govt dominated sphere is even less able to deal with longterm effects. the gov't doesn't know better than anyone else what is defined as true health. because they have no pressure to work as hard as ppl in the private sphere, they're lazier and more spendthrift. they know they can always tax more to get more funding. it's worse to have someone like the gov't act like the reliable parent since time and time again, they've been shown to be wrong and when they're wrong they affect more ppl and they are slower to change their ways. When you have competition and when ppl do a bad job (at a restaurant) or make wrong decisions (hedge funds), unless they react quick enough, they go bankrupt, because ppl vote with their dollars everyday. When you have lots of little companies competing for your dollar, it's a lot harder to create hidden alliances, and they're all going to try to beat each other out, producing a superior product. but as i mention in the capture theory above, a govt is easily prone to bribery by the gigantic corporations they're supposed to be regulating.
Ppl assume that we need FDA, USDA to protect our food sources, but they don't understand in a free market several private regulatory companies (think consumer reports but better) would arise to take their place. I love working with Fedex, i hate dealing with USPS. and because there's competition, private regulators would strive to inform as correct as possible since doing so gains client base. If you recommend an action and it makes ppl sick, you're going to lose money, but the opposite happens with the gov't; the worse your dept, the more funding you get. And then they use this money to try to get more draconian laws to try to control more thiings. Over time in a free market you can collect good widespread data to better determine long term effects, rather than having a central body that sticks to their dogma and suppresses contradictory information.
I can link and talk all day on failures of the our current medical paradigm. If i need to clarify with a specific example, I will but i'll just stop there since more isn't better and any amount i write will be prone to attack by Tzadeck lol
@Raschaverak, listening to a few of Walter Block's lectures converted me real fast. He's a very pleasant and entertaining presenter. you may have to listen to his other introductory lectures to get an understanding of the difference betw the govt and the free market as I may not have done a good job. here's his one on health economics
not his best but tackles specific topics
The point is there will be choices and nothing is done by the force of guns and imprisonment. You might have death from ppl doing stupid activities, but over time the providers of these dumb activiites would probably lose money if research showed it to be bad. but this would be better than blindly relying on a central body prone to errors and bribery (pharmaceuticals vioxx, military complex). While our medicine and technology has become more "advanced", The AMA has done a wonderful job to stop the rising heart disease and cancer epidemic (about half a million a year; cdc.gov), and it does a great job stopping the estimated 100,000 deaths each year due to nonerror, adverse effects of medications (JAMA) I assure you ppl would become smarter, more cautious and wary of activities they engage in instead of having a mass blind faith.
nadiatims,
good point as well, culture is very important in getting ppl to choose differently, and if the best information is presented, which it will if ppl are competing, it can help move that culture towards better choices.