Bottom line: whenever you hear politicians mention "system" or "plan", hold on to your wallet and run for your life!

I'd noticed this problem also.

If classical liberals want to win, they first must take back the language.

It's that simple.

Why not just one pant?

I don't think the electorate really grasps such subtleties. There is, in fact, a system because there is nothing that resembles a free market in health care. Doctors are either in network or not. Everything is regulated to within an inch of its life such that we already have a top down, planned system. Thus, everyone already thinks of it as a single system. Saying that we're going to scrap this system without replacing it with another system makes people feel very nervous because there is no plan and we've now trained generations of Americans to depend on and expect others to make plans for them instead of planning and thinking for themselves. No wonder the American Nomenklatura treats Americans like serfs. They think like serfs.

That much is painfully obvious.

I agree this is a "system" of sorts, but how are provider networks not free market?

Yes, the good ducktor and some Kuehn insight is what is desperately needed.

the network comment re-enforces the system perception among consumers. The regulations in healthcare make it a top down,system.

Clear as mud.

Should have said "the network re-enforces the perception of a top down system among consumers."

That perception is re-enforced when people realize that the number and type of provider networks as well as the type and cost of insurance is is regulated entirely by the state. Even if they don't realize it's controlled by the state, they see insurance companies denying them the product they want as a conspiracy against them. Some understand that the state of Virginia just made pregnancy riders illegal to write, but regardless of who they think is doing the planning, they view it as a planned system.

A true "system" consists of a number of components — lots of people with many different plans and incentives. In the case of "healthcare" there are creators of products, distributors of products, people who employ the products, and consumers of products (and lots of others). Some are looking for better health, some for wages, some for investment returns.

Calling it "the healthcare system" focuses only on consumers. From Merck's point of view, for example, it might better be called the pharmaceutical development system. Choosing to give name recognition to only one component of the system enables the speaker to tacitly assume that the other parts of the "system" are relatively insignificant. This makes it easier to conclude that consumption of healthcare can be controlled without significant effect on its production, distribution, etc.

The issue is not the word "system", the issue is with the use of "the".

THE health care system.

Singular; gives the impression of a unitary arrangement created and/or managed by a unitary authority.

Thanks for another post where you go completely off topic, laser focus on a microscopic, irrelevant spec in an effort to blow it completely out of proportion and divert the entire comment section into a long and pointless debate about systems within systems and systems within free markets, ad nauseum. I think everyone understands that every company, even if unregulated has certain rules and a specific plan it offers its customers and everyone understands that this is a "system" and a "plan" without reading 48 lengthy posts on the subject. I don't have the energy for picking that much lint from every crevice of my naval today. Sorry.

Yes they're regulated, but you can imagine a theoretical unregulated HMO that also has a provider network and is also a "system"

Yep. Missed my point. Go back and try again.

I made two posts that are far less lengthy than yours simply saying "markets produce systems, I don't see why 'system' implies central planning or is a word that should be shunned". Which is… if I read his post correctly… EXACTLY the subject that Don was talking about. My whole point of talking about provider networks with you was precisely that markets lead to planning and systems. How could I make that point without referencing your discussion of provider networks and the market? If you have a better way for me to make that point – let me know. If you don't, please get off my back.

It should be called the health care racket.