Without the free market, we rely on good intentions

Richard McCord, Henderson

Friday, June 11, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

Recently, friends of ours underwent open-heart surgery and all the anxiety that goes with it. It was the husband’s heart that was failing, and it was the wife’s heart that was full of worry.

In the course of diagnosis, treatment and surgery, they changed doctors and chose one of the best facilities in town. Upon changing doctors, they found that my friend’s problem could have been diagnosed and treated before it became life-threatening.

He will recover to full health, and she sent e-mails to 50 people recommending the doctors and hospitals they used.

It occurred to me that their choices of doctors and hospitals, and her ability to recommend them, would only be possible in a free market. In a government-run system, neither choices nor recommendations would exist.

In a free market for anything, consumers rely only on the provider’s self-interest. They retain the power to choose providers and will choose only those who provide the quality service they demand.

Providers who fail to meet consumers’ demands cease to be providers. In a government-run system, without choices or recourse, consumers are at the mercy of the provider’s good intentions.

To liberals, good intentions are all that are necessary and are the only proper motivations for providers. Competency and quality are expected to follow.

But without the competition of the free market to motivate them, providers have less incentive to be competent or to care about the quality of their product or service.

I would rather depend on self-interest than good intentions.