Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Oct 5, 2013.
The first two will reduce costs from 1-3%. What else you got?
I get that point, so what is your solution?
While at it can pro atheletes subsidize my income since I was not born with genetic make up to be a pro player. And maybe tech wizard gazillionaires could too..same reaso . It isn't my fault I was born withe genetics I have. Others should be fair and subsidize my income.
No, it's not different. In fact, you've just demonstrated my point. The point being that because it's life and death people perceive it differently. They/you apparently think that because someone's life is at stake they should be entitled to steak level medical care at dog food prices. That may sound offensive but isn't it more or less what is meant by "affordable care"?
Will price controls increase the supply of medical care in local markets? Will they decrease the demand in local markets? Isn't it actually more likely to increase demand and decrease the supply, thus creating shortages? In other words, it looks to me like you've proved my point, once again. That the "differences" are just perception.
well, you could increase doctors revenues by removing regulatory compliance costs....
which of course would then allow them accept lower UCR payment rates thus lowering cost of healthcare.
instead, we INCREASE regulations
Neither is a right by any logical or moral definition. Try again.
Americans have always had the same right to health care. No one is denied their ability to access health care.
I agree, birth to 18 yo free healthcare, after that it is on you to work hard and have insurance or not, just like education after high school is finished. first time i have ever heard you say something even moderately sane, hope and change is alive with chompy
People do a better job planning for their healthcare (a thing that could be made easier by government stepping back farther from the process, in a lot of ways), and where they fall short in that, that voluntary charity and philanthropy help them make good on their bills.
EMTALA goes about as far as I could tolerate the government going, but it needs to be made more punitive of people walking away from their obligation to pay for the care they received, and to purge this falsehood that it is "free healthcare".
After that... I offer no solution, because there ceases to be a solution that isn't as bad or worse than the problem it is meant to solve.
Depending on the condition, much, much higher too.
No, consumers perceive it differently because it is life or death. Since consumers perceive it differently, they act differently than in most other markets, ie. the elasticity of demand becomes exceptionally low. To help demonstrate what I am discussing, say that you are a lower middle class person (ie. high enough not to qualify for Medicaid but not so high as to have a large amount in savings).
Now you need a surgery that costs 100K to live. In a normal market, that same consumer will examine how much money they have, decide if the product is worth the price, and then purchase the product if it is or not purchase if the product is not worth it. However, in medical care, years of evidence point to the fact that this person will pay 100K, 125K, 150K, 200K, 250K....or just about any amount you ask as a hospital regardless of their economic standing in order to stay alive.
The point I am making is that free markets have two methods to keep prices down: 1. Elasticities of demand for the product as a whole and 2. Competition.
That is really it on a micro-level. Free markets have proven unable to convince people to die in order to save money. In addition, free markets have not resulted in competition developing due to the natural monopoly/oligopoly status of the hospital industry.
So in the absence of either of the mechanisms by which markets keep prices down, how else do you deflate prices in the market?
I find it hysterical that some can claim that increased competition will only reduce costs by 1 to 3%? Let me guess, you used to work for Ma Bell before it was broken up.
Not only is out of state competition, or lack thereof, a big problem but in-state is as well. Many of today's insurance companies are monopolies.
You are right.
And the answer is none.
Aww, hell, what do I know, I just read and know the Constitution.
Schooling in America is a right because it is taxpayer funded.
You are treating health care as if all consumption of heath cares services are a matter of life and death. And by proxy, the insurance market for health care.
Of course, that is not the reality.
Recently, I had a rotary cuff problem. Once it was determined that it was not bone on bone issue, then a MRI was recommended to see the extent of the damage. If the tear was severe enough, it could mean surgery. An alternative is to just take some over the counter anti inflammatory like Naproxen, do some exercises and see if it responded.
Since I have an off the shelf insurance policy, very little of a MRI is covered. And if surgery is recommended, that is of course subject to very a high deductible. I am going with the less expensive option, knowing full well I could go the MRI and possibly surgery route at any time.
THIS is an example of heath care and health insurance when we are each responsible for the cost. This is also how the market was was prior to the late 60s. The business model of the last 40 year is just not sustainable.
People are going to make rational decisions for health care just as they do for other essential goods and services, like housing and clothing and food.
It is silly to think otherwise
1. "Rational" has an economic meaning. The unwillingness of consumers to take outside options in lieu of healthcare is not necessarily individually irrational in the economic sense.
2. As to your major point, that many procedures aren't lifesaving, that is true. However, where are the most massive differences in cost between the US and other countries found?
Price of non-life saving procedures in the US expressed as a percentage of the next highest country:
CT Scan head: 160%
CT Scan pelvis: 147%
CT Scan abdomen: 137%
Cataract Surgery: 71%
Vaginal Delivery: 109%
Hip Replacement: 217%
Price of life saving procedures in the US expressed as a percentage of the next highest country:
Coronary Artery Bypass: 165%
So on average, lifesaving procedures in the US are comparatively more expensive than non-lifesaving procedures.
Perhaps people act in a more economically standard way for non-life saving procedures, a fact that is somewhat borne out by the fact that non-life saving procedures are less different in other countries compared to life saving procedures, which are massively more expensive in the profit-maximizing system.
I think you honestly believe this.
And I am just as certain you have zero understanding how absurd and downright greedy your belief is.
My wife is a physician. Why do you have a"right" to her time and skill?
Why because you want something she has do you have a "right" to her talents? Why should she be your slave because you believe her talents and knowledge are important to your life?
Your line of thought is the epitome of selfishness and greed. Not to mention narcissism. And makes me utterly sick.
You keep pointing to things that affect the demand side of the equation and using that to argue that we can't rely on the market to set the price. I get it. I got it the first time.
You've mostly ignored the supply side of the equation and you've completely ignored the government's role in limiting supply. Below is a link, and some quotes, on the role of the AMA and the government in limiting the supply. Emphasis added by me.
You don't make much sense at all. She would get paid, so she wouldn't be a slave. And besides if she doesn't want to take the government's business she wouldn't have to. She could put her own shingle out or go into another profession. I don't feel sorry for her.
I'm already covered, so I'm not being selfish.