Yes, people should have that, but it's not that simple. Some liberals, particularly classical liberals, think a free market would bring those things to everyone. I don't necessarily disagree, though I think free markets can only ever be free under communism/socialism, not capitalism. The issue with centrally planned, universal healthcare is that a hostile government could refuse to provide you care, much like insurance companies that don't approve coverage for many things. Additionally, there needs to be strong medical privacy protections.

[–] Vingst@hexbear.net 11 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Market-based healthcare favors perpetual treatment over permanent cures or preventative medicine, like dialysis over kidney transplants, insulin instead of diet and exercise. If you have a rare disease than you are just fucked, because pharmaceutical companies just want to sell dick pills. A market's purpose is to maximize revenue, not patient well-being.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 7 points 15 hours ago

I mean that's the potential problem with any service: that the faction running it could decide they don't like you. I don't think that's a good enough reason not to build things that help society though. A government could decide not to let you on a train, i still think there should be trains

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 19 points 20 hours ago

Markets are fundamentally profit driven, and services like healthcare or housing need to be provided regardless of the profit motive. These are a natural fit for the state owned industries. Where markets can have a role is providing nice to have things that improve general quality of life, but aren't living essentials.