This completely discounts the work involved to find service providers you trust. I spent a long time finding a Doctor I trust, finding a Vet I trust, etc. I don't want a "free market" solution where I need to switch providers every 6 months because some rich dude is being a dick.

This is the problem with so many market focused solutions. They discount the burden put on the consumer.

▲

rootusrootus 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the market is healthy, there will already be two or three providers in town instead of one that has any sort of monopoly, and the LBO won't be lucrative to begin with.

	▲	sarchertech 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Unless the PE firm comes in and buys up all of the vet practices in town (or enough of them), which is a tactic they like to employ.

▲

Buttons840 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're complaining about healthcare being tied to employment. That sucks. Yeah, we should get rid of that.

Coupling healthcare and employment makes it harder for agents to move and trade "freely" in the "free market".

So, I say again. The things that happen in a healthy free market are not happening in our society.

	▲	sarchertech 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The original poster was talking about vets, which don’t have that issue.

▲

s1artibartfast 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the idea is that you'd have to switch less often.

People can scam you and jerk you around because you don't have options.

If you had options, they might be less inclined