Topic: Private enterprise bankrupting America? (Read 10903 times)

Not to any sort of relevant degree, as Texas has shown us.

Consider also:

http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Americas/Accounting_for_the_cost_of_US_health_care

The US's health care costs exceed income-adjusted OECD averages the most in:

1. Outpatient care (by 436 bil, or 51%), which includes many discretionary services. It's been shown http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/05/rand_health_ins.html that medical spending actually has zero marginal value, so much of this is likely just plain unnecessary.
2. Drugs and nondurables (by 98 bil, or 39%), which is largely the work of the patent system. Notice how relatively small this category is (145/2053 billion total spending).
3. Health administration and insurance (by 91 bil, or 63%), which is partially the work of the excessive spending on advertising but is also connected to the issue of litigiousness.

http://mdsalaries.blogspot.ca

The US has the highest medical salaries (http://mdsalaries.blogspot.ca/) for general practitioners and nurses and the third highest for specialists - for this some blame licensing (cheap doctors from Vietnam can't just import themselves here) and many cite the issue of the US's higher educational system (medical school costs a lot of money that students don't have).

lol so then don't use price control to raise the prices.

Not to hit thumbs, no.

I hit my thumb with a hammer once.  It really hurt.  Does that mean people should not use hammers ?

Anyone remember what flying was like back before 1980's, when prices were fixed?

At least we are agreed on how to fix the price gouging

I never claimed that patents would be eliminated any time soon. I just saying that the government is the source of all the problems and it is. The health care system would work just as efficiently as the electronics industry in a free market environment.

Sure, price fixing may help, but it's just treating symptoms without curing the disease.

Patents won't go away so that is an argument for doing nothing and allowing the rentier to carry on overcharging.  

Can I suggest you look at the fact that other countries, which also have the same patents, have effective health care services?  As the WoPo article shows, there is a reason why America uniquely doesn't and its that, uniquely, the US gives patent monopolies for drugs and then says there is a "free market" for their prices.  

I don't ignore this fact, I'm just saying that the patent itself it one of the problems. If you make a law and then a consequence of that law is that you must fix prices, then you really need to rethink the viability the original law.

It's the same with deposit insurance. The gov guarantees deposits, eliminating risk of bank runs, then it needs to "fix" reserve requirements to stop the banks from creating infinite loans.

It's just making laws to fix the problems created by other laws. The gov removes risk and removes competition, which are natural market regulating mechanisms and substitutes it with it's own misguided regulations. Just let the market work!

asdf - what you ignore is that government gives the drug manufacturers patent monopolies and then says there is a "free market" when it comes to pricing.  Take a nanosecond to think about that.  People are sick who will die if you don't get the drug and they have to negotiate with the drug manufacturer.

Are you really saying that, unlike all other advanced economies which have got it right, Americans are spectacularly stupid and would be unable to regulate those prices?

So do you not agree that any of the interventions I mentioned drive up the price?

You think that the cause of high health costs is the fact that there isn't enough price fixing? nothing distorts the market more than screwing with the price mechanism. Price fixing always results in shortages (if too low) and surpluses (if too high). If price fixing worked, we'd all be speaking Russian right now.

You ignore the intervention that caused the high prices and then advocate more intervention to cancel out the first. How about removing the cause instead of treating the symptoms.

"Government is good at only one thing. It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you couldn't walk.'" - Harry Browne

Just like there is a stigma to "socialised" in connection with medicine perhaps?  In both cases, there seems to be a terror of admitting that using the state to achieve social aims is legitimate.

It is more confusing than that. How much you get paid out is also related to how much you paid in. The money is not distributed on a purely needs basis.

I would agree this is "welfare", but many people would not. There is a stigma against welfare.

My understanding of the US system is that if you get sick at a young age or injured, you get Medicare and Social Security.  You may never have done a day's work in your life.  Its welfare.

Really, anyone who thinks that a system that takes money from the state is not welfare is, well, I don't know what to say.

It is not the same as welfare. It is like a saving account that the government keeps for you. And yes someone who holds a sign indicating a failure to realize that medicare is run by the government is either a plant or a drone.

Asdf forgot the one big point I especially have an issue with, which is that "healthcare costs are high" is just a nebulous feeling most people have, without having concrete evidence for it. Specifically it's because companies are incentivized to cover a huge portion of insurance premiums for their employees for tax purposes, without even being required to let them know how much, and as a result, most employees believe their health insurance costs them something like $60 to $160 a month, when the actual figures are close to $300 to $450 a month. That money still comes out of the payroll budget, and I strongly believe that if the practice was ended, and instead all employers were forced to make all employees buy their own insurance while giving them all the money they are due (I.e. everyone gets a raise equivalent to the amount of insurance premium subsidy they were getting), not only would everyone in US get an extreme shock of seeing just how much their health insurance actually costs, and get motivated to do so something,  but they will individually start shopping for the best prices and services, driving insurance costs way down really fast.
Then the only question remains is do we have an individual mandate, forcing everyone to have insurance, or do we pass a notice/law that hospitals are not required and should NOT treat anyone unless they or their insurance can pay.

Most people don't make the connection that if they are on Medicare or Social Security, they are on welfare.  To call them "drones" or "plants" is fun for you but it doesn't get around the fact that Americans are being charged vastly more than anyone else for medicines.

I mean that is drone behavior if not. I dunno, in my time I've met some drones and people who just didn't consider what they were saying (like "credit unions are for farmers"...) but that is just pure drone if true.

I've heard of these people. They must be plants.