HealthCare Pop Quiz

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's how the free market works and works in healthcare, we need to remove the distorting of government intervention

LASIK surgery is typically not covered by insurance including Medicare accordingly the cost of the procedure has:

a) Skyrocketed

b) Plummeted

 

[eflatminor]

Well sure, a free market keeps costs in check and innovations up. HOWEVER, we could do the same thing with government-controlled healthcare if only the right central planners were in charge....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well sure, a free market keeps costs in check and innovations up. HOWEVER, we could do the same thing with government-controlled healthcare if only the right central planners were in charge....

Just a few more thousand pages of regulation...

 

[eflatminor]

Well sure, a free market keeps costs in check and innovations up. HOWEVER, we could do the same thing with government-controlled healthcare if only the right central planners were in charge....

Just a few more thousand pages of regulation...

Just one more law...THAT will do the trick!

 

[thewanderer]

This is a false equivalency often offered by those I have seen advocating cash-based health care systems.

I do not dispute the general premise. However, equivocating shopping for heart surgery or cancer treatment is a lot different than shopping for an elective luxury procedure with relatively low risk.

 

[eflatminor]

This is a false equivalency often offered by those I have seen advocating cash-based health care systems.

I do not dispute the general premise. However, equivocating shopping for heart surgery or cancer treatment is a lot different than shopping for an elective luxury procedure with relatively low risk.

How is it so different as to render the notion of competition and consumer choice irrelevant? You acknowledge that a free market keeps costs down and innovation up for eye care, but not other types of healthcare? Specifically, why?

 

[thewanderer]

This is a false equivalency often offered by those I have seen advocating cash-based health care systems.

I do not dispute the general premise. However, equivocating shopping for heart surgery or cancer treatment is a lot different than shopping for an elective luxury procedure with relatively low risk.

How is it so different as to render the notion of competition and consumer choice irrelevant? You acknowledge that a free market keeps costs down and innovation up for eye care, but not other types of healthcare? Specifically, why?

Because of the specialized knowledge necessary to make decisions about those types of medical care and the amount of leverage that the provider has over a patient when his or her life is at stake. I'm not even necessarily saying that it wouldn't work to bring costs down. I am saying that I don't think many people would appreciate the experience of shopping for cancer treatment to save their loved one's life like it was a trip to the car lot to buy a new car.

 

[eflatminor]

This is a false equivalency often offered by those I have seen advocating cash-based health care systems.

I do not dispute the general premise. However, equivocating shopping for heart surgery or cancer treatment is a lot different than shopping for an elective luxury procedure with relatively low risk.

How is it so different as to render the notion of competition and consumer choice irrelevant? You acknowledge that a free market keeps costs down and innovation up for eye care, but not other types of healthcare? Specifically, why?

Because of the specialized knowledge necessary to make decisions about those types of medical care

Lots of markets and industries that require specialized knowledge to make decisions...including the eye surgery that has seen prices drop and innovations increase without government meddling. Many technical/specialized markets operate just fine with competition in free markets.

Fail #1

and the amount of leverage that the provider has over a patient when his or her life is at stake.

People don't make the decision after the heart attack, they make it before, when they purchase health insurance or sign up with a particular organization/PPO, etc. Nobody's suggesting people for a surgeon when they need emergency surgery. You do that beforehand.

Fail #2

I'm not even necessarily saying that it wouldn't work to bring costs down.

Good, because it would.

I am saying that I don't think many people would appreciate the experience of shopping for cancer treatment to save their loved one's life like it was a trip to the car lot to buy a new car

Nobody made that comparison except you.

Fail #3

Of course, removing the ability to shop for cancer treatment without massive government interference dramatically increases the likelihood that they'll not be able to afford said treatment and will have far fewer choices in that treatment.

Wonderful plan.

You still haven't made your case how shopping for a some medical services are "a lot different" than shopping for others. The 'because I say so' retort doesn't cut it. Sorry.

 

[thewanderer]

Look Junior,

if you want to have a reasonable and thoughtful discussion about this, I'm in. If all you want to do is try to justify a point of view that you have already committed to with religious fervor and in arrogant alpha fashion, I'm out. I'm too old for that crap. Your response above does not intrigue me and neither of us will benefit from carrying that discussion out any further. If you indicate that you'd like to proceed rationally and without the self-parade I will respond point by point as you did.

I am a health care provider who has owned three clinics in two states. Two of them were cash and one was insurance. I know a little bit about what I'm talking about here from real world experience.

What's your background, so that I can understand what perspective you're coming from?

 

[Mr Natural]

When open heart surgery becomes an elective procedure, we'll see the cost of that come down also.

 

[Oddball]

When open heart surgery becomes an elective procedure, we'll see the cost of that come down also.

When people pay for any medical procedure out-of-pocket, we'll see the costs plummet.

 

[eflatminor]

What's your background, so that I can understand what perspective you're coming from?

Two advanced degrees (Finance and Economics), a lifetime of economic study, 20 years with a Fortune 100 insurance company, Entrepreneur with two companies in the financial services industry.

Not sure what my background has to do with the points above, but there you go.

Feel free to respond as you like, but I'm still waiting for your case as to how shopping for some medical services are "a lot different" than shopping for others, and specifically, when it makes sense to remove competition from the equation.

p.s. Thanks for calling me Junior...been some time.

 

[thewanderer]

Not sure what my background has to do with the points above, but there you go.

It is of interest to me because in your response you were unnecessarily abrasive and alpha-acting. That usually indicates someone of low self-esteem who feels that he or she has something to prove. You also took one of my points not only out of context of what I said, but also out of context of the entire thread, which usually indicates low reading comprehension, and finally, you completely made up a statement that you attributed to me at the end as a straw man, which usually indicates that a person doesn't really have a good argument.

Now, your stated resume doesn't jive with any of that, but then again, it also doesn't jive with failing to understand how the economic principles such as scarcity, lack of substitute goods and/or services, and greatly inflated demand value due to the nature of the situation make shopping for Lasik surgery different than shopping for surgery to remove a neuroblastoma.

If you don't understand how shopping for one service when time is not a factor and the worst thing that happens if the treatment is ineffective or the potential customer decides not to buy at all is that a person continues to wear corrective lenses whereas in the other case the person may have very little time to make up his or her mind about treatment options and if they choose an ineffective course of treatment, debate too long, etc., the worst case scenario is death, I don't know what to tell you. If that's not self-evident to any thinking person, then I got nothing.

Immanent death is a huge inflator of demand, and when supply is static (as it is in this case) demand drives price and limited time reduces the likelihood of much comparison shopping, doesn't it?

The comment that you made that is borderline nonsensical to me to the point that I began to question reading comprehension is the one about not waiting until you have a heart attack to find a surgeon; that you should get insurance beforehand. We're talking about a cash system. As opposed to an insurance model. That's the whole debate.

and specifically, when it makes sense to remove competition from the equation.

That's another straw man. I never said that. I also never said cash wouldn't bring price down. It would...somewhat. But that lower price would come with a price of its own.

What I object to is the idea that gets floated by free market religionists that if we went to a completely cash system everything in health care would be just like it is now, but only cheaper. That isn't so. I can promise you. I've done it.

Testing that catches potentially fatal diseases early wouldn't be done, a lot of psychiatric care, orthopedic surgeries, supportive care for individuals with disabilities, expensive technology-driven care, simply wouldn't be available to most people, and a lot of technology that we all take for granted would become scarce too. All of a sudden getting an MRI as a patient is a big deal because 3 out of the 5 clinics in town can't pay for their machine and it goes away. (Speaking of which, MRIs have plummeted in price too despite still being covered by insurance. Surely they taught you guys in your advanced degree classes the difference between simple correlation and causation, didn't they?)

No big deal for an MRI, right? The water would seek its own level and the price would reflect routine community demand. That works great until you have to have some specialized piece of equipment that you only ever need once in a while to save some kid's life and you couldn't afford one.

More to type, but no more time to type...

p.s. Thanks for calling me Junior...been some time.

Don't mention it. Us old timers never get carded anymore, so at least we can pretend on the internet, huh?

 

[Oddball]

Wow...eflatminor alpha-acting and of low self-esteem with something to prove?

Methinks noob is engaging in a bit that projection thingy.

 

[eflatminor]

We're talking about a cash system. As opposed to an insurance model. That's the whole debate.

Disagree. We're talking about a free market for healthcare, which can include insurance. What we're saying is that in the absence of government meddling, there would be competition, choice and innovation. That means lower prices and better results.

What I object to is the idea that gets floated by free market religionists that if we went to a completely cash system everything in health care would be just like it is now, but only cheaper. That isn't so. I can promise you. I've done it.

Again, we're not saying it has to be a 'cash' system. That wouldn't be very free market, would it?

What were are saying is that if you allow competition to work and individuals to have VOLUNTARY choice, prices will come down and results will improve.

Testing that catches potentially fatal diseases early wouldn't be done, a lot of psychiatric care, orthopedic surgeries, supportive care for individuals with disabilities, expensive technology-driven care, simply wouldn't be available to most people, and a lot of technology that we all take for granted would become scarce too.

Horse hockey. When people pay for their own services and/or insurance out of their own pocket without the influence of government or their employment status, they have an INCREASED incentive to be healthy and to engage in the preventative and other services you list.

You want lots of top notch care? Pay for it. You want a bare bones policy with no bells or whistles? You should have the right to sell such a policy. You want a healthcare savings account with whatever level of funding you deem appropriate? That should be YOUR choice, not a central planners.

All of a sudden getting an MRI as a patient is a big deal because 3 out of the 5 clinics in town can't pay for their machine and it goes away.

Again, bull. The demand for MRIs should dictate how many are in town, not how much money you're able to steal from other citizens. Besides, there's still 2 MRI machines in town. Are you suggesting a right to convenience? Drive to the nearest MRI for heaven's sake!

That works great until you have to have some specialized piece of equipment that you only ever need once in a while to save some kid's life and you couldn't afford one.

A lack of proper planning on your part does not constitute and emergency on mine. Plan accordingly or be prepared to seek out charity...the VOLUNTARY kind.

Now that you understand that a free market in healthcare can include insurance and any other preventative measures against future medical situations, can you address your central point, that shopping for some medical services are "a lot different" than shopping for others?

Again, it worked for eye surgery. Explain how it wouldn't work for MRIs or any other medical procedure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a false equivalency often offered by those I have seen advocating cash-based health care systems.

I do not dispute the general premise. However, equivocating shopping for heart surgery or cancer treatment is a lot different than shopping for an elective luxury procedure with relatively low risk.

That is like saying buying a car is a lot different than buying a toaster. In other words, it only makes sense if you assume people are stupid.

 

[Mr Natural]

When open heart surgery becomes an elective procedure, we'll see the cost of that come down also.

When people pay for any medical procedure out-of-pocket, we'll see the costs plummet.

Sure, everybody's got a spare hundred grand hanging around for just in case money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a false equivalency often offered by those I have seen advocating cash-based health care systems.

I do not dispute the general premise. However, equivocating shopping for heart surgery or cancer treatment is a lot different than shopping for an elective luxury procedure with relatively low risk.

How is it so different as to render the notion of competition and consumer choice irrelevant? You acknowledge that a free market keeps costs down and innovation up for eye care, but not other types of healthcare? Specifically, why?

Because of the specialized knowledge necessary to make decisions about those types of medical care and the amount of leverage that the provider has over a patient when his or her life is at stake. I'm not even necessarily saying that it wouldn't work to bring costs down. I am saying that I don't think many people would appreciate the experience of shopping for cancer treatment to save their loved one's life like it was a trip to the car lot to buy a new car.

Bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When open heart surgery becomes an elective procedure, we'll see the cost of that come down also.

The price has gone down considerably over the years.

 

[Oddball]

When open heart surgery becomes an elective procedure, we'll see the cost of that come down also.

When people pay for any medical procedure out-of-pocket, we'll see the costs plummet.

Sure, everybody's got a spare hundred grand hanging around for just in case money.

Irrelevant to the fact.

Besides that, there are doctors and clinic willing to set up payment schedules.