Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Health care and the free market

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are many who claim that health care in the United States is outrageously expensive because it is privatized. I never understood how people could believe this. Other countries have proven that it is possible to do medical procedures for a lot less than they cost in the US at roughly the same quality. If the health care industry here was actually free to function, then why the fvck couldn't a business copy what other countries do - that is, offer good quality medical services for significantly less money, and run everyone else out of business. It makes zero sense. What can a government do that a business can't?
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 7:36:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There are many who claim that health care in the United States is outrageously expensive because it is privatized. I never understood how people could believe this.

Two words: administrative costs.

Other countries have proven that it is possible to do medical procedures for a lot less than they cost in the US at roughly the same quality. If the health care industry here was actually free to function, then why the fvck couldn't a business copy what other countries do - that is, offer good quality medical services for significantly less money, and run everyone else out of business. It makes zero sense. What can a government do that a business can't?

Health care isn't cleanly divided like you (or any Republican politician) thinks it is. Government is involved in every level of it, and that was the case just as much before Obamacare as it is now... and that's just the way it is.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 8:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 7:36:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There are many who claim that health care in the United States is outrageously expensive because it is privatized. I never understood how people could believe this.

Two words: administrative costs.

Yeah, because lower administrative costs means more efficiency. What utter horsesh1t.


Other countries have proven that it is possible to do medical procedures for a lot less than they cost in the US at roughly the same quality. If the health care industry here was actually free to function, then why the fvck couldn't a business copy what other countries do - that is, offer good quality medical services for significantly less money, and run everyone else out of business. It makes zero sense. What can a government do that a business can't?

Health care isn't cleanly divided like you (or any Republican politician) thinks it is. Government is involved in every level of it, and that was the case just as much before Obamacare as it is now... and that's just the way it is.

Exactly. Even before Obamacare it was a bureaucratic monstrosity. If other countries can purchase safe hip replacement surgeries for their citizens for 7000 dollars, there's no reason why a private company in the United States could charge 40k for the same procedure. Yet they do all the time. If the health care industry here was actually a free market, this would not be possible.

Obviously, the American health care system hasn't resembled anything like a free market in a very long time.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 8:06:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 8:03:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 7:36:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There are many who claim that health care in the United States is outrageously expensive because it is privatized. I never understood how people could believe this.

Two words: administrative costs.

Yeah, because lower administrative costs means more efficiency. What utter horsesh1t.

At some point, we'll talk about how all of that works... I don't feel like doing it tonight. But, you'd be surprised at how high admin costs for american private health care are compared to... Germany or France, for example.

Other countries have proven that it is possible to do medical procedures for a lot less than they cost in the US at roughly the same quality. If the health care industry here was actually free to function, then why the fvck couldn't a business copy what other countries do - that is, offer good quality medical services for significantly less money, and run everyone else out of business. It makes zero sense. What can a government do that a business can't?

Health care isn't cleanly divided like you (or any Republican politician) thinks it is. Government is involved in every level of it, and that was the case just as much before Obamacare as it is now... and that's just the way it is.

Exactly. Even before Obamacare it was a bureaucratic monstrosity. If other countries can purchase safe hip replacement surgeries for their citizens for 7000 dollars, there's no reason why a private company in the United States could charge 40k for the same procedure. Yet they do all the time. If the health care industry here was actually a free market, this would not be possible.

Obviously, the American health care system hasn't resembled anything like a free market in a very long time.

If the health care industry was actually free... that would not be good for either the health care industry, or for people in America.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 8:18:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 8:06:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:03:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 7:36:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There are many who claim that health care in the United States is outrageously expensive because it is privatized. I never understood how people could believe this.

Two words: administrative costs.

Yeah, because lower administrative costs means more efficiency. What utter horsesh1t.

At some point, we'll talk about how all of that works... I don't feel like doing it tonight. But, you'd be surprised at how high admin costs for american private health care are compared to... Germany or France, for example.

That says nothing about the efficiency of a free market vs a public funded system. Currently, private health care companies have to worry about a trillion regulations. Plus, since they are profit oriented they have to worry about overall efficiency, which means they have to spend money figuring out how to improve efficiency. Governments don't have to worry about that nearly as much, since they can't fail. Thirdly, private companies have to spend money on advertising since they are in competition with other companies, and competition drives down costs. They also have to spend money appeasing the government.

Other countries have proven that it is possible to do medical procedures for a lot less than they cost in the US at roughly the same quality. If the health care industry here was actually free to function, then why the fvck couldn't a business copy what other countries do - that is, offer good quality medical services for significantly less money, and run everyone else out of business. It makes zero sense. What can a government do that a business can't?

Health care isn't cleanly divided like you (or any Republican politician) thinks it is. Government is involved in every level of it, and that was the case just as much before Obamacare as it is now... and that's just the way it is.

Exactly. Even before Obamacare it was a bureaucratic monstrosity. If other countries can purchase safe hip replacement surgeries for their citizens for 7000 dollars, there's no reason why a private company in the United States could charge 40k for the same procedure. Yet they do all the time. If the health care industry here was actually a free market, this would not be possible.

Obviously, the American health care system hasn't resembled anything like a free market in a very long time.

If the health care industry was actually free... that would not be good for either the health care industry, or for people in America.

If the health care industry was actually free, health care prices would be SO much less, and a lot more people would be able to afford it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 8:26:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 7:37:46 PM, Mirza wrote:
Slightly relevant, but I heard you must pay to have an ambulance come to you in America; is this true?

Of course you have to pay for it. Why wouldn't you? If you can't pay for it, they still come of course.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 8:45:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Of course government administration costs will be lower when they are exempt from most regulations and in some cases, lawsuits.

Is that the fault of private industry, or crony regulations?

Regulations are politically crafted to be a campaign point for why government should take over the economy; but when they do, are you truly surprised when the government refuses to follow its own rules? Duh.

The dirty secret is that health care is immediately regulated far more from lawyers than politicians. When the lawyers are not allowed to regulate the government, you just have to settle for the proscribed bar. Ever been to a military doctor? It's hit or miss, nothing standardized.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 8:46:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Remember that the government only needs to satisfy 51% of the people. If you fall in the 49% that gets crappy care, too bad, so sad.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:13:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 8:45:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Of course government administration costs will be lower when they are exempt from most regulations and in some cases, lawsuits.

lol you are so grossly mistaken. Lawsuits are not the cause of high medical costs... that is a lie purported on people by the Republican party. I mean, it's not just a mistake or an oversight. It's a manifest lie, intended to shield the medical insurance industry from the costs of paying out verdicts when doctors hurt people.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:28:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:13:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:45:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Of course government administration costs will be lower when they are exempt from most regulations and in some cases, lawsuits.

lol you are so grossly mistaken. Lawsuits are not the cause of high medical costs... that is a lie purported on people by the Republican party. I mean, it's not just a mistake or an oversight. It's a manifest lie, intended to shield the medical insurance industry from the costs of paying out verdicts when doctors hurt people.

Kind of an ironic claim given that in states that have capped med mal verdict awards at a low number, malpractice insurance rates have not even gone down.

Also just a weird claim in general when doctors in government-run schemes are still not exempt from lawsuits. [see, e.g., http://www.loc.gov...]

Also a weird claim when the highest contribution to costs are demonstrably from the high costs of procedures and medicine in the U.S. because hospitals can legally price discriminate based on bargaining power. Government systems have lower costs cuz the government has way more bargaining power than even a large insurance company.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:34:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:13:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:45:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Of course government administration costs will be lower when they are exempt from most regulations and in some cases, lawsuits.

lol you are so grossly mistaken. Lawsuits are not the cause of high medical costs... that is a lie purported on people by the Republican party. I mean, it's not just a mistake or an oversight. It's a manifest lie, intended to shield the medical insurance industry from the costs of paying out verdicts when doctors hurt people.

Of course lawsuits aren't the sole cause of high medical costs - he wasn't claiming they were. He was only saying that administration costs are higher for private institutions because they are subject to more regulations and lawsuits.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:34:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:28:04 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:13:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:45:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Of course government administration costs will be lower when they are exempt from most regulations and in some cases, lawsuits.

lol you are so grossly mistaken. Lawsuits are not the cause of high medical costs... that is a lie purported on people by the Republican party. I mean, it's not just a mistake or an oversight. It's a manifest lie, intended to shield the medical insurance industry from the costs of paying out verdicts when doctors hurt people.

Kind of an ironic claim given that in states that have capped med mal verdict awards at a low number, malpractice insurance rates have not even gone down.

They've actually gone up in Texas... which was sort of on the forefront of the tort reform movement.

Also just a weird claim in general when doctors in government-run schemes are still not exempt from lawsuits. [see, e.g., http://www.loc.gov...]

Yeah.

Also a weird claim when the highest contribution to costs are demonstrably from the high costs of procedures and medicine in the U.S. because hospitals can legally price discriminate based on bargaining power. Government systems have lower costs cuz the government has way more bargaining power than even a large insurance company.

Exactly.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:38:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There are many who claim that health care in the United States is outrageously expensive because it is privatized. I never understood how people could believe this. Other countries have proven that it is possible to do medical procedures for a lot less than they cost in the US at roughly the same quality. If the health care industry here was actually free to function, then why the fvck couldn't a business copy what other countries do - that is, offer good quality medical services for significantly less money, and run everyone else out of business. It makes zero sense. What can a government do that a business can't?

Whenever there is imperfect competition, prices will not be driven down to the market rate.

One primary reason that health care costs are so high in the US is that the cost of procedures (e.g. bypass surgery) is astronomically high here compared to other countries. Hospitals charge literally what they can get away with. If you have a lot of bargaining power, e.g. you are the biggest insurance company in the US, the hospital charges your customers (and essentially you) a lower rate for these procedures because you demand lower rates. If the hospital doesn't comply, you can refuse to cover procedures done there. If you are uninsured in the US, you have no bargaining power, so you get charged a ridiculous rate. The government has a massive amount of bargaining power, so when it is the only insurer in the country, it can basically demand whatever price it wants for procedures. It's basically as if every person in the entire country pooled their bargaining power to force the hospital to charge them a reasonable rate.

The reason hospitals don't just charge lower prices to try to compete against each other is because the market is imperfect, so they wouldn't actually make more money by doing this. The market is imperfect for a number of reasons. (1) Each hospital has a local monopoly. You're not going elsewhere if it's an emergency. You're going to the closest one. (2) Prices are not transparent. You don't get the bill until after the procedure is already done. If you're not actually shopping on the basis of price, the hospital has no incentive to lower prices. They don't care if you can't pay afterwards. They're perfectly happy taking all your assets in bankruptcy. (3) Hospitals can price discriminate. Normally, it's impossible to charge customers different rates based on willingness to pay because you don't *know* which customers are willing to pay more. In this context, prices aren't seen until after the procedure. Insurance companies are smart enough to bargain *prior* to a procedure being done for a low price. But individuals aren't. So the hospital can basically charge you whatever it wants. And you usually need the treatment or you'll suffer severe health consequences, so the hospital's optimal strategy is to charge you so much you're put into bankruptcy and take all your assets since (a) you won't even bother to check the price before doing it and there's no clear way to do that even if you wanted, and (b) even if you couldn't afford the procedure, you can't really just walk away. So they may as well charge you a price equivalent to everything that you own. For most citizens, this is exactly what they do.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:34:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:28:04 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:13:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:45:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Of course government administration costs will be lower when they are exempt from most regulations and in some cases, lawsuits.

lol you are so grossly mistaken. Lawsuits are not the cause of high medical costs... that is a lie purported on people by the Republican party. I mean, it's not just a mistake or an oversight. It's a manifest lie, intended to shield the medical insurance industry from the costs of paying out verdicts when doctors hurt people.

Kind of an ironic claim given that in states that have capped med mal verdict awards at a low number, malpractice insurance rates have not even gone down.

They've actually gone up in Texas... which was sort of on the forefront of the tort reform movement.

Doesn't surprise me. Insurance prices are sticky. The insurance companies realized they could get away with charging the prices they charged prior to tort reform? Why lower prices? Tort reform just raises their profits. As long as no insurance company breaks rank and reduces prices, none will. And now that the old prices became the new prices, there's no reason not to keep raising the prices at the same rate you did before.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:41:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 8:26:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 7:37:46 PM, Mirza wrote:
Slightly relevant, but I heard you must pay to have an ambulance come to you in America; is this true?
Of course you have to pay for it. Why wouldn't you? If you can't pay for it, they still come of course.
That's just sad.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:40:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:34:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:28:04 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:13:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2015 8:45:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Of course government administration costs will be lower when they are exempt from most regulations and in some cases, lawsuits.

lol you are so grossly mistaken. Lawsuits are not the cause of high medical costs... that is a lie purported on people by the Republican party. I mean, it's not just a mistake or an oversight. It's a manifest lie, intended to shield the medical insurance industry from the costs of paying out verdicts when doctors hurt people.

Kind of an ironic claim given that in states that have capped med mal verdict awards at a low number, malpractice insurance rates have not even gone down.

They've actually gone up in Texas... which was sort of on the forefront of the tort reform movement.

Doesn't surprise me. Insurance prices are sticky. The insurance companies realized they could get away with charging the prices they charged prior to tort reform? Why lower prices? Tort reform just raises their profits. As long as no insurance company breaks rank and reduces prices, none will. And now that the old prices became the new prices, there's no reason not to keep raising the prices at the same rate you did before.

You are absolutely right.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:09:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:38:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There are many who claim that health care in the United States is outrageously expensive because it is privatized. I never understood how people could believe this. Other countries have proven that it is possible to do medical procedures for a lot less than they cost in the US at roughly the same quality. If the health care industry here was actually free to function, then why the fvck couldn't a business copy what other countries do - that is, offer good quality medical services for significantly less money, and run everyone else out of business. It makes zero sense. What can a government do that a business can't?

Whenever there is imperfect competition, prices will not be driven down to the market rate.

One primary reason that health care costs are so high in the US is that the cost of procedures (e.g. bypass surgery) is astronomically high here compared to other countries. Hospitals charge literally what they can get away with.

That's what all businesses do. This doesn't explain why medical care is, in particular, so expensive.

If you have a lot of bargaining power, e.g. you are the biggest insurance company in the US, the hospital charges your customers (and essentially you) a lower rate for these procedures because you demand lower rates. If the hospital doesn't comply, you can refuse to cover procedures done there. If you are uninsured in the US, you have no bargaining power, so you get charged a ridiculous rate. The government has a massive amount of bargaining power, so when it is the only insurer in the country, it can basically demand whatever price it wants for procedures. It's basically as if every person in the entire country pooled their bargaining power to force the hospital to charge them a reasonable rate.

This is kindergarten logic. Lower prices are always preferred to higher prices. Even if I have very little bargaining power, I'm still going to look for the best prices. The motivation to find the best price is the same for everyone. If the established price is way above what it could be offered at, what's to stop someone from selling it for cheaper and stealing everyone's customers?

If what you're saying is true, then why is getting your car fixed at the shop cost about the same as when your insurance company pays them to do it?


The reason hospitals don't just charge lower prices to try to compete against each other is because the market is imperfect, so they wouldn't actually make more money by doing this.

According to your reasoning, they can't compete, so they aren't colluding in any real way.

The market is imperfect for a number of reasons. (1) Each hospital has a local monopoly. You're not going elsewhere if it's an emergency. You're going to the closest one.

First of all, most medical care is not emergency care. Second, costs for non-emergency medical procedures in the U.S. are just as overpriced as emergency procedures. Third, if there were a free market, a hospital that charged too much and exploited everyone who used the hospital would create a huge incentive for someone to come in and compete. What you're saying applies to all industries, not just medical.

(2) Prices are not transparent. You don't get the bill until after the procedure is already done. If you're not actually shopping on the basis of price, the hospital has no incentive to lower prices. They don't care if you can't pay afterwards. They're perfectly happy taking all your assets in bankruptcy.

In a free market, hiding prices from potential customers would basically be economic suicide, because it's totally unnecessary, and thus, competitors could choose not to do it and put you out of business while still making a profit.

(3) Hospitals can price discriminate. Normally, it's impossible to charge customers different rates based on willingness to pay because you don't *know* which customers are willing to pay more. In this context, prices aren't seen until after the procedure. Insurance companies are smart enough to bargain *prior* to a procedure being done for a low price. But individuals aren't. So the hospital can basically charge you whatever it wants. And you usually need the treatment or you'll suffer severe health consequences, so the hospital's optimal strategy is to charge you so much you're put into bankruptcy and take all your assets since (a) you won't even bother to check the price before doing it and there's no clear way to do that even if you wanted, and (b) even if you couldn't afford the procedure, you can't really just walk away. So they may as well charge you a price equivalent to everything that you own. For most citizens, this is exactly what they do.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:18:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have actually looked into the research here and there are a lot of factors. One of which that is often ignored is GDP per capita. Although it doesn't explain everything, it probably can explain a large amount. The US has a very high GDP per capita income and also has higher health care costs. Health care costs are associated with GDP per capita, in part because wealthier people spend more on unnecessary health care.

Government regulations also tend to drive up prices. Government regulations and the new BS from Obamacare (like ICD-10) significantly hurt my Dad's private practice. Governments can reduce prices through bargaining power, but they also destroy private practice and this reduces competition. It is a two way street.

I think the free-market can do a lot of good here since our health care system is not market oriented. I think health savings accounts are a good start.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:27:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:38:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If you have a lot of bargaining power, e.g. you are the biggest insurance company in the US, the hospital charges your customers (and essentially you) a lower rate for these procedures because you demand lower rates. If the hospital doesn't comply, you can refuse to cover procedures done there. If you are uninsured in the US, you have no bargaining power, so you get charged a ridiculous rate. The government has a massive amount of bargaining power, so when it is the only insurer in the country, it can basically demand whatever price it wants for procedures. It's basically as if every person in the entire country pooled their bargaining power to force the hospital to charge them a reasonable rate.

What you fail to realize is that it is in the interest of every individual to find the lowest price possible, and it doesn't take a collect effort to get companies to adjust their prices accordingly. Any company that charges more than it has to will simply be put out of business by a company that undercuts them - because every individual will individually choose to switch companies.

The idea that "as individuals, we have no power" is nonsense. Our power rests in the fact that choose whom we patronize. That choice completely undermines the potential for exploitation.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:09:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is kindergarten logic. Lower prices are always preferred to higher prices. Even if I have very little bargaining power, I'm still going to look for the best prices. The motivation to find the best price is the same for everyone. If the established price is way above what it could be offered at, what's to stop someone from selling it for cheaper and stealing everyone's customers?

This is literally the dumbest thing anyone has ever said to me on DDO. It's like you didn't even read what I said.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:43:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:28:34 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:09:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is kindergarten logic. Lower prices are always preferred to higher prices. Even if I have very little bargaining power, I'm still going to look for the best prices. The motivation to find the best price is the same for everyone. If the established price is way above what it could be offered at, what's to stop someone from selling it for cheaper and stealing everyone's customers?

This is literally the dumbest thing anyone has ever said to me on DDO. It's like you didn't even read what I said.

Explain how it's not directly relevant to your idea that "we have to pool our money together in order to motivate companies to offer us fair prices".

Obviously, my point was that collective bargaining has no real advantage over individual bargaining. As an individual, you're going to choose the company that offers the lower price every time. A company can't just say "ha, peasant! I'm going to charge you a lot since you aren't that important to me" and expect you to not to switch to a company with fairer prices. You may disagree, but if you fail to see the relevance then I'm afraid you're an idiot.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:03:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:38:54 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 5:52:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The government has a massive amount of bargaining power, so when it is the only insurer in the country, it can basically demand whatever price it wants for procedures.

No, it cannot. It can demand only those prices which are ultimately profitable for the hospital; it can't expect hospitals to work for no monetary incentive. Obviously, it's in the government's interest to demand the lowest price it can get i.e., the lowest price at which it is still economically feasible for the hospital. But the situation is no different for the individual. Individuals can demand the same low price and expect to get it, because any company that doesn't offer it will simply be undercut by someone with more economic sense. In the long run, there's no way to survive as a company if your business is based on exploitation, because people don't have to be exploited, and there's no way to prevent others from liberating them through fair trade.

So yes, your argument uses kindergarten logic.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:21:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:18:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have actually looked into the research here and there are a lot of factors. One of which that is often ignored is GDP per capita. Although it doesn't explain everything, it probably can explain a large amount. The US has a very high GDP per capita income and also has higher health care costs. Health care costs are associated with GDP per capita, in part because wealthier people spend more on unnecessary health care.

Seriously doubt this. Switzerland and Norway, which are both richer than the US, spend slightly less on health care (as percent of GDP) than Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan etc.

Luxembourg, which is basically the richest country in the world, spends only 6.6 percent of GDP on health care, compared to 17 percent in the US.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:25:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 11:21:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:18:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have actually looked into the research here and there are a lot of factors. One of which that is often ignored is GDP per capita. Although it doesn't explain everything, it probably can explain a large amount. The US has a very high GDP per capita income and also has higher health care costs. Health care costs are associated with GDP per capita, in part because wealthier people spend more on unnecessary health care.

Seriously doubt this. Switzerland and Norway, which are both richer than the US, spend slightly less on health care (as percent of GDP) than Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan etc.

Luxembourg, which is basically the richest country in the world, spends only 6.6 percent of GDP on health care, compared to 17 percent in the US.

It is not the only factor, of course, but it is a factor and fits pretty well with basic regression analysis. Here is a whole book about this topic (http://www.aei.org...). Go to page 9. it is obviously a factor, but it is not the largest factor. The US is actually the largest break in the trend, the other countries you listed seem to cluster near the median trend line.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 11:25:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:21:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:18:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have actually looked into the research here and there are a lot of factors. One of which that is often ignored is GDP per capita. Although it doesn't explain everything, it probably can explain a large amount. The US has a very high GDP per capita income and also has higher health care costs. Health care costs are associated with GDP per capita, in part because wealthier people spend more on unnecessary health care.

Seriously doubt this. Switzerland and Norway, which are both richer than the US, spend slightly less on health care (as percent of GDP) than Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan etc.

Luxembourg, which is basically the richest country in the world, spends only 6.6 percent of GDP on health care, compared to 17 percent in the US.

It is not the only factor, of course, but it is a factor and fits pretty well with basic regression analysis. Here is a whole book about this topic (http://www.aei.org...). Go to page 9. it is obviously a factor, but it is not the largest factor. The US is actually the largest break in the trend, the other countries you listed seem to cluster near the median trend line.

The data is 15 years old. It would be interesting to see if it still holds true.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:32:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 11:28:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:25:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:21:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:18:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have actually looked into the research here and there are a lot of factors. One of which that is often ignored is GDP per capita. Although it doesn't explain everything, it probably can explain a large amount. The US has a very high GDP per capita income and also has higher health care costs. Health care costs are associated with GDP per capita, in part because wealthier people spend more on unnecessary health care.

Seriously doubt this. Switzerland and Norway, which are both richer than the US, spend slightly less on health care (as percent of GDP) than Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan etc.

Luxembourg, which is basically the richest country in the world, spends only 6.6 percent of GDP on health care, compared to 17 percent in the US.

It is not the only factor, of course, but it is a factor and fits pretty well with basic regression analysis. Here is a whole book about this topic (http://www.aei.org...). Go to page 9. it is obviously a factor, but it is not the largest factor. The US is actually the largest break in the trend, the other countries you listed seem to cluster near the median trend line.

The data is 15 years old. It would be interesting to see if it still holds true.

I mean if I was motivated I could always do it, wouldn't be that hard. It would just take time. I bet the trend continues somewhat.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:34:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 11:28:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:25:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:21:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:18:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have actually looked into the research here and there are a lot of factors. One of which that is often ignored is GDP per capita. Although it doesn't explain everything, it probably can explain a large amount. The US has a very high GDP per capita income and also has higher health care costs. Health care costs are associated with GDP per capita, in part because wealthier people spend more on unnecessary health care.

Seriously doubt this. Switzerland and Norway, which are both richer than the US, spend slightly less on health care (as percent of GDP) than Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan etc.

Luxembourg, which is basically the richest country in the world, spends only 6.6 percent of GDP on health care, compared to 17 percent in the US.

It is not the only factor, of course, but it is a factor and fits pretty well with basic regression analysis. Here is a whole book about this topic (http://www.aei.org...). Go to page 9. it is obviously a factor, but it is not the largest factor. The US is actually the largest break in the trend, the other countries you listed seem to cluster near the median trend line.

The data is 15 years old. It would be interesting to see if it still holds true.

http://content.healthaffairs.org...

Holds up in 12 year old data. SO a bit newer.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross