Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Oct 5, 2013.
So you think public school teachers are slaves?
First, I do applaud the consistency (seriously). So many people that discuss health care as a "free market" would never touch the idea of allowing anybody that wants to say they are a doctor, say they are a doctor, and letting the market sort it out from there.
As to the substance of your post, I would posit two major points. First, if the issue was heavily on the supply side, we would see a major increase in the wait times for procedures. A supply side mechanism would mean that too many people were demanding services, increasing the wait times in the short-run. Have we seen that in the US?
Second, the article you link has at least one major historical inaccuracy. Many med schools have been opened since the 1980s. The author is trying to do a little bit of hand waving, by not counting DO programs (a DO is still a doctor). However, even in MD programs, there have been many new schools added since the 1980s. A quick search includes:
UC Riverside (2013)
Quinnpiac University (2010)
Florida International (2006)
Florida State (2000)
Florida Atlantic (2010)
University of Central Florida (2006)
Oakland University (2011)
Rowan University (2009)
Hofstra University (2010)
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine (2002)
Commonwealth Medical College (2008)
Paul L Foster School of Medicine at Texas Tech (2008) (Texas Tech has two medical schools)
Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine (2010)
And that is just the recently opened ones. There are also a bunch in the works (for places like Temple University, UC-Merced, California Northstate, Central Michigan, Western Michigan, etc.
As far as reducing options, DO programs and PA programs have exploded in recent years, which have drastically increased the options for those looking to get into things like medicine in rural or other under-served area. So you may not get an MD, but there are very few place you couldn't find a DO or a PA.
If you can get insurance with pre-existing conditions, why buy insurance until you get sick? I feeling good right now, I won't buy it but next year if I get cancer I will just sign up because they have to take me.
Absolutely no reason whatsoever. Nobody in this system should buy insurance until they are standing in the ER holding their guts in, unless or until it becomes more punitive to not buy it.
This is certainly an issue with the law as it is written. The thought would be that the penalty would help pay for some of the irresponsibility. In addition, it would not be possible to purchase health insurance in the event of an accident. Also, many cancers are exceptionally time sensitive and the time of getting insurance would lower the likelihood of successful treatment (certainly not true for all cancers).
But certainly, there is a potential for some free riding. Of course, as it stands now, if you are diagnosed with cancer without insurance, we still likely treat the symptoms and the person gets to free ride through a medical bankruptcy or death (in which case, it can be difficult to recoup all medical costs). So free riding exists in any situation that requires emergency treatment (even if that requirement is societal and not legal).
Exactly, there is no reason. Which could be what kills the whole thing because the group of people they need to sign up are the 21-40 age group who are healthy and their premiums will be needed to carry the elderly who wont be charged the rate they need to be charged based on usage.
The younger group will go uninsured and the program will become a huge albatross around the taxpayers neck.
Or perhaps liberal policy wonks should remove the scales from their eyes and understand that the reason their entire political and economic philosophy is a manifest failure is that it continually depends on human beings acting contrary to human nature. In this instance, that people will voluntary consume a member (to polish a cruder euphemism) by buying inflated insurance that covers more than they personally need just to subsidize care for others.
True, but not the good thing you might hope. Remember, the point of this legislation from day one has been to fail ugly and leave the Democrats positioned to explain that now the ONLY WAY to save healthcaree is to go completely totalitarian, er I mean socialist, er I mean single-payer.
And perhaps you need to remove the scales from your eyes and realize that decision making behavior is far more complicated than you are making it. Will there be free riders? Absolutely. How many? That depends on quite a bit, including other portions of human nature as well. Human psychology is naturally pre-disposed against free riding based on the in-borne social nature of humans. We find it socially unacceptable.
The level of social unacceptability, combined with a variety of internal factors including sensitivity to the social unacceptability, ability to hide the free riding from other social actors, ability to understand the free riding decision (ie. many people have trouble understanding the level to which they are free riding in the creation of pollution that affects others), etc. It also involves the valuation of coverage in the case of accidents (which would not be possible to free ride as treatment would occur before insurance could be purchased).
BTW, the strangely potentially homo-erotic metaphor seems completely out of place. It really doesn't add anything to the discussion and seems mostly designed for some alternative purpose. You might want to think about why you felt it necessary to include it in an economic discussion.
So people 21-40 never fall off ladders or get into car accidents? That is odd because I was sure glad I had health insurance when I broke my hand last year (I am between 21-40).
Of course they do. I have employees in that age group who decline participation in our health insurance program because they say they rather spend the money on other stuff, flat screens, I pads, Iphones, a car, etc. They are young and think they will never get sick or have an accident. Do you think that mentality is going away when they have the choice between a small fine that is way less than the cost of the insurance or the insurance itself? I can tell you it won't.
Basic rational econ would say it would decline. If you fine the person, you lower the "gains" for choosing to free ride. This would result in a marginal free rider now becoming not a free rider. How often this happens, depends on the distribution of how strongly committed to free riding these younger people are.
Don't get the wrong idea, though. While I used doctor's as an example, there's a large regulatory barrier to entry for any sort of medical business, including hospitals.
I'm not sure whether we've seen it or not. What I do know is that price is determined by supply and demand. If the demand is inelastic then lowering the price will have to happen on the supply side of the equation. By artificially lowering prices you will create supply problems.
I wondered about the medical school thing too. I had read that the AMA limited the number of doctors. According to their wikipedia entry the AMA has become concerned about a shortage of doctors. If a political lobby group is worried about a shortage of doctors I think that does sort of indicate that there either are supply problems now or that there are supply problems coming down the pike.
I had never heard of a DO before you mentioned it but I've thought about the the PA thing several times during this discussion because it indicates to me that there is a supply problem in the medical industry or there will be soon.
From a doctor. Now he is one that refuses to accept the statists premise...
"In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector."
Yep, it gives them the opportunity but also the obligation to buy health insurance.
I should have a right to your life as well. What do you do that we should own as citizens of this country?
I demand people start paying for my statin, niacin, fish oil and co-Q10 immediately. I also demand that any bad luck sent my way is covered by my neighbor.
The statist mind is sad... :smoke:
I want nothing to do with a system like Canada. I want to receive treatment when I need/want it...
I think you missed the point. :smoke: