Thread: Healthcare and the Free Market

I'm wondering what you folks think of the healthcare system currently, but rather than look at the numbers that are so often skewed, I'd like to keep the argument abstract if we could. I guess I'll just ask two generic questions here...



1. Do you believe that a free-market healthcare system drives toward the best interests of our national ideals?



to clarify: often we hear that we have the best healthcare system in the world, curing things other countries didn't think were possible. But for every abnormal disease that only effects 2000 people a year (albeit terminally) we have 8 cures for Male Pattern Baldness. How does this sit with you, as a person and as an American.



2. Do you feel that market forces are correctly being implemented into the healthcare system?



to clarify: we tend to support economic systems because of some grander philosophy. Market forces are considered fair by most folks because they unabashedly work toward the will of the people. But is this happening in Health Care where there isn't an option to go without (assuming everyone isn't looking to die early) and price-fixing, a decidedly non-Market Force dictates not only disvalued rates, but ever increasing rates which directly spins against supply and demand - even in a joint-risk venture.



Let me know what you think. As always I'm confused as to why some conservatives aren't backing reform even as it drives against their inate philisophical principles.

Emergency services are unaffected by the principles of supply and demand. When the consumer is forced by life or death circumstances to demand a product, with no choice in the matter, it is no longer relevent to discuss supply and demand economics. It simply does not apply. How much would you pay for oxygen? For clean water? You'd pay every penny you had, you'd sell your home, you'd go bankrupt, and you'd have no choice in the matter.



The same is true of all emergency services. Fire and rescue, police, military. When people are in vital, urgent need of life saving services - you can't argue that they should have to pay what the available provider decides to charge. This is the same reason these emergency service providers cannot strike, despite the right to unionise and wlak off the job collectively being enshrined in law in every other sector. And medical insurance - not care... INSURANCE.... is an emergency service.



Emergency services are not fairly offered under supply and demand economics. They are best provided under economy of scale economics - meaning everybody pays a litle bit and therefore the service is available to all at a cheaper price than it could possibly be if offered privately.



This will be followed by a long list of people urging "It wont be cheaper, it wont be cheaper". Health care in the US is more expensive that anywhere else on planet Earth. ANYWHERE. The economy of scale makes it cheaper, the right of citizens to vote for representatives maintains the high quality of the service. You don't live in North Korea, they are not a comparable system. Europe and Commonwealth countries are comparable, and they are all doing it better and cheaper with insurance viewed as a basic right of citizenship, not a privilige.



There is no reason to allow public health care providers, the US has the infastructure and population not to require it. It's the insurance that MUST be available at a fair rate, despite that going against the ideological dogma of the comfortable classes.

There is one Air Force, and it is entirely funded by the Federal Government through the taxpayer. If you don't like how it's run your options are to support candidates who agree with you, or to complain to your cat. No other option.



This isn't tyranny, it's not socialism, it's not breaking anti-trust laws or price fixing - its an exemption to the normal rules of commerce made because it is.... an essential service.



Go ask someone with breast cancer if they feel their health insurance is essential or something they choose to consume.

[quote name='gabebrooks' date='06 November 2009 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1257552110' post='53950']

When I was 21, I got out of the Navy for a time... I was unemployed and got sick. So, I did what any poor, unemployed and uninsured person should... I went to the County hospital, waited 6 hours or so, and got free care.



That's in our current system.



I would guess that some improvements could be made... but I don't think we need to completely reinvent it.

[/quote]



Agreed. Our current system isn't all that bad! I mean, I'm lookin' around goin' "where's the crisis"?



There's only two things I can see, in that regard: a ) the cost, and b ) the uninsured.



The uninsured, that's kinda like poverty. And we should, can, and do have safety nets in that regard.



The cost, that issue is mainly related to two things: a ) insurance companies, and b ) waste on the part of providers.



Factor (a) there, it the one that's of overwhelming significance, to both the cost AND the level of uninsured.



So, this ends up being a really simple equation, right? If you want to address the cost, you have to find a way to regulate the insurance companies.



But, they're doing the exact opposite! They're tossing 40 million million new customers at Big Insurance and letting them go hog-wild!

After all the studying I've done on the Healthcare situation, I have discovered one undeniable truth, tort reform is complete horseshit. I did a report on this for my class and I didn't find one study to suggest that tort reform lowers malpractice premiums for doctors. All it seems to do is increase the profit of Insurers, who figure they can keep the extra money and still increase premiums on doctors. I also couldn't find one document that conclusively proved that doctors practice defensive medicine. Actually what I can tell you is that victims of medical malpractice have a 4% chance of being compensated. And what's even more suprising is that reducing medical malpractice premiums would have so little impact on the price of healthcare that there is no point in even changing the legal system. You would from all the noise from the conservatives that this it would actually help, but it wouldn't do a damn thing.

[quote name='gabebrooks' date='06 November 2009 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1257552110' post='53950']

When I was 21, I got out of the Navy for a time... I was unemployed and got sick. So, I did what any poor, unemployed and uninsured person should... I went to the County hospital, waited 6 hours or so, and got free care.



That's in our current system.



I would guess that some improvements could be made... but I don't think we need to completely reinvent it.

[/quote]



hmmm, why was your care "free"? you mean you didn't have any money so you just didn't pay the bill? or it was ACTUALLY free, you weren't charged for any services?

[quote name='Dr.Knuckles' date='06 November 2009 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1257537374' post='53762']

There is one Air Force, and it is entirely funded by the Federal Government through the taxpayer. If you don't like how it's run your options are to support candidates who agree with you, or to complain to your cat. No other option.



This isn't tyranny, it's not socialism, it's not breaking anti-trust laws or price fixing - its an exemption to the normal rules of commerce made because it is.... an essential service.[/quote]

No, that pretty much is a textbook example of tyranny.



As with everything else involving the government, granting it an unrestricted healthcare monopoly is a bad idea.

[quote name='Morgan' date='06 November 2009 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1257522253' post='53661']

1. I think it certainly can. We have the resources to achieve what we wish. All we need to do is take a look at our priorities. Do we really want to solve ED before Cancer? The thing is, we came about solving ED by accident, so why not market it? Most of the medical discoveries and scientific discoveries are found by accident. [/quote]



I absolutely agree we need to take a good hard look at our priorities, however, I don't share your optimism that our current "for profit" system will ever achieve an effective result. Until we redefine the role of the corporation in our society, and remove their "citizenship", they will continue to control OUR government, write OUR laws, and destroy the middle class. That's why health insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws, and that's why we do have price fixing, unaffordable rates, and cost-shifting to the taxpayer. In short, BEFORE we worry about competition, and even consider a "for profit" model, we need to end corporate "personhood", and undue influence on our government. Then (maybe), a free market environment might work.



[quote name='Morgan' date='06 November 2009 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1257522253' post='53661']

2. Not completely, but again they can. If we take politics out of the equation and open up the free-market to benefit the people above all else, then I think we will see results. That goes for a domestic point of view. Price-fixing is already illegal, and should stay as such.

[/quote]

How would you "take politics out of the equation"? What would that look like exactly? And while price-fixing is already illegal, it's perfectly legal for an insurance company to set whatever price they wish since they're exempt from anti-trust laws. So could you explain to us how the result is any different?



-sensored