The Misesian: How did you discover Austrian economics, and what led you to the Mises Institute?
Łukasz Jasiński: When I finished my degree at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin (Poland), I remember I was very disappointed because I studied economics and wasn’t satisfied with mainstream economics. After a few years, I accidentally discovered two books by Henry Hazlitt. This is how my fantastic journey with the Austrian School began.
After this I started my PhD studies on the US healthcare system. This is also the reason why I’m here as a visiting scholar, thanks to a grant from the Kosciuszko Foundation. I’m working on my research project, titled “Medical Savings Accounts and Improved Access to Medical Services.” I’m focused on identifying strong promarket solutions in healthcare overall.
TM: What got you interested in studying the American healthcare system as a scholar from Poland?
LJ: I’d heard many stories about the US healthcare system and found that there are plenty of myths about it, such as that you have promarket healthcare. In Poland, we unfortunately have a single-payer system, and it doesn’t work. Longer waiting times, problems with quality, and despite the fact the government spends more and more, we don’t see greater outcomes, more accessibility, or better quality.
Sometimes promarket propositions come up and so-called experts say, “If you want promarket solutions, look at the United States. You don’t want that.” So I became interested in the question of whether a true market in healthcare can work. I think it is a fantastically interesting subject. It has been the focus of my PhD work and a few of my books: The Economics of ObamaCare (2023) and Health Insurance in the United States of America: Austrian Perspectives on Interventionism Before ObamaCare (2025) connect the Austrian theory of interventionism to healthcare.
We have, as Austrians, a fantastic economics paradigm. We have fantastic teachers and scholars to build on. But there has been a gap in academic books when it comes to promarket solutions in healthcare. I am working to fill that gap.
TM: You have done a lot of research on Obamacare’s impact on the healthcare system. What are some of the biggest issues you’ve identified?
LJ: First of all, before Obamacare, America had something far from a free-market healthcare system, contrary to the popular myth.
Obamacare’s main goal was to cover uninsured Americans. Another common myth is that there are almost 50 million Americans without access to healthcare, who would be sentenced to die on the street if they became very ill. This is a very dramatic story, but it isn’t true.
The main goal of this so-called reform, of these changes, was to create special marketplaces, heavily subsidized quasi markets, where government could cover a large portion of the premium, especially if you are a lower-income person. Politicians thought it would solve most of the problems. But it didn’t.
It ignored, again, the laws of economics and was just another example of price controls.
So now we have artificially increased demand and limited supply. The effect is that insurance premiums have risen very, very dramatically, for many people. Their deductibles too.
A few big insurance companies have left the market and now you have less competition and limited access.
Even if you are formally insured, it doesn’t mean you have better access to medical services. It isn’t true. I think this situation is one of the worst effects of Obamacare. In my second book (The Economics of ObamaCare), I took a close look at the changes since Obamacare and described them as a “death spiral.” In short, we have a cycle of premium and deductible increases as a result of harmful government regulations in the health insurance market.
TM: At this year’s Austrian Economics Research Conference, you presented a paper on potential free-market solutions to healthcare. What are some models worth considering?
LJ: In 2021, I published Markets Versus Public Health Systems: Perspectives from the Austrian School of Economics. There I tried to describe a totally free-market healthcare system, how a market-based healthcare system can work without government interventions. Many people think that this is just public health insurance versus market health insurance, and we should support government solutions because on the market, insurance companies can easily exclude you or minimize the scope of your insurance. They view this as a so-called market failure.
It isn’t true. Insurance, like money, is a market institution. It is designed to cover relatively rare events—risks—which lead to significant expenses that vastly exceed the insured’s financial capabilities.
If we want to compare market solutions to government solutions in this field, the main difference is that with a true market, there would be a strong structure for financing medical services.
There would be a variety of solutions. Not just health insurance covering true risk, but also direct payments for medical services. You this structure would be charitable institutions. These are market solutions.
So, it’s a mistake to simply compare the costs of market health insurance and government health insurance. It ignores these other alternatives. By the way, so-called government health insurance isn’t insurance. It is just another kind of redistribution.
If we look at the effects of Obamacare—rising insurance premiums, limited access to health services, rising deductibles, and many other issues—it isn’t working.
In Austrian economics we refer to the structure of production. I like to say that in a true market for healthcare, we have a structure of financing access to medical services. In my opinion, this is the main difference.
Of course, there is also the need for deregulation on the supply side. Market forces can create better credentials with more competition as well.
TM: We’ve seen a lot of in interest in Austrian economics and libertarianism coming from Poland. Tell us a little bit about what you’re seeing in Poland as a scholar in the movement.
LJ: I think it’s still developing, and I am a good example of this. More than ten years ago, I had no idea who Mises was, who Rothbard was. I knew very few who were interested in a promarket approach.
Now we have plenty of scholars. Plenty of my friends now have received a PhD, as I have, and have started an academic career. Some very talented people.
Besides my research, I’m here is to see how the Mises Institute in Alabama is working and to bring back lessons so our movement can continue to grow in Poland. I see this big gap, and we have a lot of work to do.
My hope is that the Polish Mises Institute (the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Economic Education) can grow to have a major impact on our society and government. Imagine a situation where our government wants to introduce another stupid regulation, and we as an institution have a voice to stop it. I think this should be our goal.
________________
Dr. Łukasz Jasiński received support from the Kosciuszko Foundation for his project “Medical Savings Accounts and Improved Access to Medical Services.”
