Private enterprise bankrupting America? - page 4.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on March 11, 2012, 07:13:19 PM

Hawker, if I may ask, what kind of economics or business background do you have?

I call bullshit on your underhanded line of questioning which leads nowhere.

Irrelevant in every measure. Argue the points, not what you presume are the credentials or lack of credentials of the person you are arguing with. There rarely is no better expert than one who is passionate about a subject.

If you wish, I will personally engage you (with extreme confidence) in any of the following topics, even though I have no formal education in any of them:

- Computer graphics
- Philosophy of mind
- Climate change
- Filmmaking
- Environmentalism

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Rassah on March 11, 2012, 07:13:19 PM

Hawker, if I may ask, what kind of economics or business background do you have? I Can't figure out if it's "none" or if you learned econ from someplace... weird is the only way I can think of putting it. Basically a lot of what you are saying makes little to no sense when applied to the basic Supply/Demand on Price/Quantity chart.

Well the basic idea is that:

1) People will spend every last penny on healthcare

2) A large single payer/insurer will be able to negotiate better prices

Therefore, people will not make rational economic decisions when it comes to healthcare and government intervention is more efficient.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Hawker, if I may ask, what kind of economics or business background do you have? I can't figure out if it's "none" or if you learned econ from someplace... "weird"... is the only way I can think of putting it. Basically a lot of what you are saying makes little to no sense when applied to the basic Supply/Demand on Price/Quantity chart.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

I agree that the US spends more than everyone else. I have throughout this thread. What I am unconvinced about is that universal healthcare would fix this problem. I think it is more complicated than a single number can convey:

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 04:13:13 PM

In the US, the average cost per person is $7k/year, but look at the distribution of that cost:

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm

Is it normal for 5% of the population to be responsible for 40% of healthcare expenditure? I was looking for a chart like this for canada or the UK but haven't found one.

Also, I think that "cutting healthcare spending in half would fix america's deficit" is jumping to conclusions. It is not like that money goes down a black hole. It is being transferred from one type of person to another. To know if there would be an effect on the deficit we would have to estimate the opportunity cost of the money being spent on healthcare, know how much wealth is being transferred out of the country, etc.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

No - that's just you changing the subject. Its a nice graph though. You will notice that the US spends a lot more than anyone else. Yet it has worse results. You are wasting a ton of money and if that were fixed, the US deficit situation would be transformed.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

I still think you are jumping to conclusions. Why do you think healthcare spending has been rising exponentially worldwide for the last 50 years?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on March 11, 2012, 03:58:25 PM

if that's the case, then the ONLY option is government mandated prices, but that will very likely result in shortages; everyone can afford it, but it's not available because no one wants to make it. I just don't see how this can happen without going outside the bounds of market laws.Maybe if the goverment makes it using government owned factories and sells it only within the country borders...

Correct. National mandated prices are the only rational option. Its the normal way of doing things in all advanced economies.

Oddly, the only country where the shortages that worry you occur is the USA. And now you have looked at the economic incentives, you know why the US has drug shortages and other countries do not.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

In the US, the average cost per person is $7k/year, but look at the distribution of that cost:

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

if that's the case, then the ONLY option is government mandated prices, but that will very likely result in shortages; everyone can afford it, but it's not available because no one wants to make it. I just don't see how this can happen without going outside the bounds of market laws.Maybe if the goverment makes it using government owned factories and sells it only within the country borders...

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on March 11, 2012, 03:42:54 PM

You're forgetting that, likewise, the drug and medical companies will lose ALL their income on some procedures if insurers chose not to cover it. ...snip...

That's the point. They don't lose a cent. The patient has to have the drug. If the insurer can't get it, the patient will sell his house. The drug company charges people buying without insurance even more so they win no matter what.

That's why the vendors are on 25% margin.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

You're forgetting that, likewise, the drug and medical companies will lose ALL their income on some procedures if insurers chose not to cover it. So both, the insurers AND the medical providers will need to agree on a price. There's also the issue of all insurance companies declining some treatment if they feel it's unnecessary, so all of them let some people die. Finally, if it's just one medical procedure that isn't being offered, like, say, treatment and possible cure for Leukemia, if one insurance company advertises that they cover it while another doesn't, everyone who doesn't have leukemia won't care, and will stay with whatever coverage they had before, but everyone who does have leukemia will flock to this one company, and will likely bankrupt them as they are forced to treat more leukemia patients and raise their premiums to afford it, pushing everyone who doesn't have leukemia out.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 02:56:34 PM

Quote from: Hawker on March 11, 2012, 02:50:08 PM

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 02:36:29 PM

Why can't they walk away (I mean at the point of offering a coverage plan)? In principle, any given insurance company can just refuse to cover certain eventualities they deem non-profitable. This may lose them some business, but that's what actuaries are for.

They will lose all their business if they are letting patients die. People will pay every cent they have for an extra year of life and if 1 company can't offer it, that company will lose market share.

You can picture the adverts now. "Insure with BigCostly Inc because unlike, SlighlyLessCostly Inc, we won't let you die."

On the face of it this seems true, and it is probably impossible for the average person to make an informed decision regarding which medical care would give the most bang for the buck (hell, most of the time doctors are just making informed guesses). But would people really drain their children's college funds, etc if a doctor told them it would give them a 80% chance to stay alive an extra year?

The answer is yes but its off topic. Google "usa medical expense last year of life" for stats if its a subject you are interested in.

The topic is why is private enterprise causing the expense. As you say, its true that the insurance companies cannot negotiate as their marketing pitch requires them to offer the drugs and the manufacturers have patent protection.

In better run systems, the government sets the price.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on March 11, 2012, 02:50:08 PM

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 02:36:29 PM

Why can't they walk away (I mean at the point of offering a coverage plan)? In principle, any given insurance company can just refuse to cover certain eventualities they deem non-profitable. This may lose them some business, but that's what actuaries are for.

They will lose all their business if they are letting patients die. People will pay every cent they have for an extra year of life and if 1 company can't offer it, that company will lose market share.

You can picture the adverts now. "Insure with BigCostly Inc because unlike, SlighlyLessCostly Inc, we won't let you die."

On the face of it this seems true, and it is probably impossible for the average person to make an informed decision regarding which medical care would give the most bang for the buck (hell, most of the time doctors are just making informed guesses). But would people really drain their children's college funds, etc if a doctor told them it would give them a 80% chance to stay alive an extra year?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 02:36:29 PM

Why can't they walk away (I mean at the point of offering a coverage plan)? In principle, any given insurance company can just refuse to cover certain eventualities they deem non-profitable. This may lose them some business, but that's what actuaries are for.

They will lose all their business if they are letting patients die. People will pay every cent they have for an extra year of life and if 1 company can't offer it, that company will lose market share.

You can picture the adverts now. "Insure with BigCostly Inc because unlike, SlighlyLessCostly Inc, we won't let you die."

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Why can't they walk away (I mean at the point of offering a coverage plan)? In principle, any given insurance company can just refuse to cover certain eventualities they deem non-profitable. This may lose them some business, but that's what actuaries are for.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 02:22:26 PM

That makes sense, except some insurer's are pretty huge:

Quote

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a federation of 38 separate health insurance organizations and companies in the United States. Combined, they directly or indirectly provide health insurance to over 99 million Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Cross_Blue_Shield_Association

But they can't walk away. If they refuse to pay, the patient dies and that sort of defeats the object.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

That makes sense, except some insurer's are pretty huge:

Quote

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a federation of 38 separate health insurance organizations and companies in the United States. Combined, they directly or indirectly provide health insurance to over 99 million Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Cross_Blue_Shield_Association

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 02:12:37 PM

That doesn't answer the question. Why are US insurer's at such a disadvantage?

Think a little how a small insurer is going to negotiate against a multinational company that has a patented drug the patient needs. The insurer can't go elsewhere for the drug and can't walk away if it doesn't get a good price.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

That doesn't answer the question. Why are US insurer's at such a disadvantage?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 02:00:44 PM

I just read it. The answer is not there.

I take it you missed this part then:

Quote

“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.

In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.

Really, how hard would it be to have actually read the article instead of childishly saying "I read it but can't find the answer."

Topic: Private enterprise bankrupting America? - page 4. (Read 10903 times)