Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Party Rooster, Jun 21, 2011.
Gee, doctors want to force everyone to get healthcare so that they never miss a payment? I'm shocked.
Wow what a huge surprise. Just as surprising as car salesmen wanting to force everyone into buying a car.
To be specific, it's like less than 20% of car salesmen trying to force people to buy cars. The AMA speaks for doctors as much as the UAW speaks for "workers".
Speaking of that great, well-thought out healthcare legislation...
How could lawmakers and analysts have actually caught that glitch though...I mean, there were alot of pages in that bill that they would've had to thumb through. Honest mistake.
I'm going to keep saying this: none of us wants affordable health insurance. We want affordable healthcare. The "healthcare bill" isn't a healthcare bill: it's a health insurance bill.
Basic supply and demand economics: by placing a secondary product (health insurance) between the consumer and the primary product they desire (healthcare), you shield the primary product from the effects of supply and demand. Therefore, healthcare gets more expensive. That makes health insurance more expensive, but then people demand that health insurance get cheaper, not the healthcare itself.
There's a reason why breast implant surgery and LASIK eye surgery have both gone down in cost while getting better. Health insurance doesn't cover it.
I'm not saying we should be ditching the health insurance system: I'm saying we're "fixing" things from the wrong end of the horse.
That, and the "healthcare bill" is still a sterling example of what happens when the President abrogates all responsibility for actually writing his own laws to Congress.
Absolutely, and anybody saying the health system doesn't need to be fixed is frankly an idiot. The easier, and better solution to the problem would have been the creation of Health Insurance Co-Ops. The biggest problem with insurance these days is the companies could give a fuck about their customers, and for the most part there's no way around that for the customer. make the companies truly accountable to their customers though and we have a whole different story.
It's also why you can get brake jobs and oil changes for $20-$100 a pop, but you go to a body shop and it's $5k to roll out some dents. Same with basic home repairs vs a new roof because of hail or wind damage.
I don't get how people don't get this shit with all of the examples we have all around us.
Rhetorical question right?
One which applies to so many things it makes my head spin.
Because they've grown up never having to pay for a doctor's visit. That ever increasing chunk just gets taken from their check every week, and they think they're getting something for free. Just like taxes.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. But how do you incentivize regular checkups?
We can think of a hundred ways, of course, but the truth is that making a system that actually works in incentivizing regular checkups and good health practices is difficult, at best. Part of it is making people pay for their mistakes. It's not "nice", but it's how to make people actually behave better in the most minimally invasive way.
Not that people see it that way.
You know, being self-employed most of my adult life I've never thought about it like that.
Why shouldn't doctors expect to receive payment for services rendered?
I have some pretty good health insurance (that costs me $100 a week) and it still costs $20 to see a doctor and at least $15 to fill a prescription. I'm pretty sure I can't remember when a doctor's visit was "free".
Do you honestly think it costs a medical office $120 (or whatever uninsured/self-insured people pay) to talk to you for 5 minutes and write you a Rx for Valium? Anything that is mostly subsidized by insurance is artificially price inflated.
More importantly, do I care? It sucks to pay $120 to be told you have the sniffles, but when I have bones sticking out of my skin, I'm glad the doctor is standing by to stitch me up and not toss me in the gutter for the same $120.
Nail on the head. The docs I work with have very little love for the AMA.
They absolutely should be, and therefore their support of Obamacare should been seen as financial, not medical or ethical. Don't sell me some crap about "individual responsibility." You want to get paid with less red tape. Good for you.
Isn't it responsible to have a means to pay for your incurred medical expenses?
Can you "mandate" responsibility? This seems like a pretty fucking weird sentence to me. "I'm taking responsibility for my life because I'm required to by law".
Anyway, it's fucking simple. As stated before, this bill did nothing to address the cost of health care, it just fucked with who pays for it. Address the core costs of health care and the financial burden on everyone will be reduced.
Those are also examples of procedures that aren't necessary to maintain the health of the individuals who choose them, so the consumer has the ability to shop around for the best deal. In that way they are goods more like flat screens than they are like heart bypass procedures. There are other reasons why the competetive market model doesn't work for health care, as economists have known at least since Kenneth Arrow's work almost 50 years ago.
Here is a decent explanation in plain english of the issues:
And to make the abstract concrete:
Before the server backup, I had a long winded response to this. I'll tl;dr it down to this point: Demand for healthcare is elastic when it's offered in a market that isn't artificially inflated by insurance. When people have to pay for their own care, they'll stop going to the doctor for hangnails and common colds.
It's not hangnails and colds that are driving up health care costs, the big ticket items come from treatment of the sickest 20% of the population. Their demand is not elastic and unless the sickest 20% also happens to be the wealthiest 20%, there will need to be some form of insurance in the equation because even in free market fantasy land many treatments will likely be too expensive for most to pay out of pocket. Sure, some prices may come down if you reduce demand by cutting out insurance, but "reduced demand" in that context is a euphemism for sick people unable to afford treatment.
If you really eliminate insurance risk pooling, which in essence is the healthy 80% subsidizing the cost of treating the sick 20%, some treatments that were profitable to produce under an insurance-supported market might no longer be profitable when only a fraction of that former customer base has the individual means to pay for it.
Then there is the issue of sticky prices. While we wait the months or years it would take incredibly sick people newly "free to choose" what they can afford to pay out of pocket to move the market through competition, many prices will be resistant to downward movement even with a decrease in demand due to factors like long term contacts firms have with suppliers, executive pay packages, etc. Not sure what the free market solution is for sick people waiting for the invisible hand to make their treatment affordable.