At 6/26/12 10:51 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
...what? insurers face very little competition; virtually no competition at all. health insurance is one of the most concentrated markets in the u.s.
FALSE. Healthcare was working extraordinarily well in america until the government "fixed" it.
the crux of this article is about medical care provided by fraternal societies, which i honestly haven't heard before. and unless you can point to a specific passage in that article, i can't find anything that definitively makes the case that the government ruined healthcare. long seems to make the case that this was by crushing fraternal societies, which, is certainly a unique argument to make.
You haven't proven that at all.
be honest, did you read any of the sources i linked?
I'm expalining why the prices are high. You're saying that supply and demand somehow doesn't apply to healthcare.
because that's the case. the demand for healthcare really sees no limit, especially if cost is not a factor for the consumer. shopping around for emergency care when you really need it is impossible. tell me, then, how do you put a limit on how much youâEUTMre going to demand if your life is literally at stake? the supply of physicians and providers is not driven by normal market forces. there's a lot of medical students going into specialized fields forr reasons that arenâEUTMt necessarily fitting with the supply-demand curve. specialization is driven by income, especially because specialists make considerably more in most cases than primary care physicians.
the argument for supply and demand carries with it a few assumptions. when those assumptions are violated, supply and demand doesn't work out. two major assumptions are violated by our current healthcare system: the first is that consumers have price/quality information so they can shop around for the best value; the second is that consumers actually pay the price of what they buy.
for the first one, how do consumers choose the best value? firstly, if they're smart, they'll do research on a product they want to buy. hypothetically, if you're going to buy a new hard drive, you're going to want to see how much rpm the disk has, how big the size is, etc. without those important bits of information, how can consumers choose the best value? they canâEUTMt! and thus, thereâEUTMs not much incentive for hard drive manufacturers to take risks to improve drives because it wonâEUTMt help them make more money if everybody is blindly shooting in the dark. innovation is stifled without that incentive. to go back to healthcare, why would a doctorâEUTMs office make an innovation, such as to install an electronic medical record that would temporarily disrupt process flows and require a large upfront cost if it wonâEUTMt help convince more patients to come? (hint: because they can).
secondly, although consumers pay the full cost for their healthcare, they have already done it through insurance premiums or reduced salary. but they donâEUTMt see that full price directly like itâEUTMs coming straight out of their wallet, so they donâEUTMt perceive that theyâEUTMre paying the price, so they donâEUTMt care so much what the price is. this inflates demand in a big way! think about the man whose father is about to die. heâEUTMll tell the doctor to do whatever it takes to keep the father alive, but how willing would he be to do that if the man knew he was going to have to pay 750 grand right out of his own bank account?
So, yeah, I was correct.
yes and no. the restrictions were in place, but it's worth mentioning that they aren't anymore.
By what metric is it overspending? I don't necessarily disagree, but why do you think they're spending too much? Isn't more better?
no, more is not better. it's pretty apparent: i've shown you how much the u.s. pays for healthcare related expenditures and compared our health statistics to other countries and we're far far behind every developed nation in the world. it may seem counter-intuitive (doesn't buying more of the best stuff put you in a better position?!) but the numbers don't lie.
This is irrelevant to your point.
no, it isn't, because we don't know how much insurance they're getting. what plan are we talking about? not all insurance is the same.
Read my first post. America is economically doomed.
you're welcome to start another thread for this, i'll gladly debate you on this but it'll just clog up this thread.
So, you're saying UHC would be magically different to, you know, literally ever single other government department tht has ever existed?
well, firstly, there are quite a lot of governmental departments. i'm not too sure how you're going to compare the DTRA to, say, the SBA. and i'm not too sure if there is a problem with either of those departments, are you?
Of course there is. Why do you treat healthcare as some special thing.
because the government isn't going to handle mail the same way they're going to handle healthcare? it's like apples to oranges.
By your logic, the post office should be running perfectly. They are a monopoly and they don't operate for profit. Why wouldn't it be performing excellently?
the post office isn't quite a monopoly (hint: ups, fedex, dhl). the usps has, at every turn, been subject to "starve the beast" measures that have forced it to raise prices, like the mandated employee superannuation investment that has now resulted in some 70 years of pre-invested pension pay.
Um, logic. If people, say, started businesses in what they personally wanted, instead of trying to maximise profit, then there would be an oversupply of certain businesses and an undersupply of other businesses.
BEcause of the profit motive, people start businesses where there is an undersupply (i.e where profiots are highest) which results in lower prices because the same money chasing more goods leads to lower prices. basic supply and demand.
the "free market" isn't some magical cure-all solution. you fail to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. canada, which is one of the worst performing UHC systems, is also one of the most 'free market'. this may not be a coincidence. regardless, even in canada people pay significantly less for their healthcare and receive, on average, better care.
seriously, look at how much we spend, only to be ranked 72nd in overall health. every single uhc system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the american health care system; how does more of what we already have make things better? only the government has the power to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and the leverage to counteract the inherit inequities of profiting from disease.
Read my first post again. I didnt even say that UHC was bad, I said that america cant afford it and that its bad to make people dependant upon the government when there are going to be ENORMOUS budget problems in the near future.
i don't see how you can honestly think that when it's pretty clear that not only can we afford it, but we'll also be saving money.