Originally posted by quackquackYou're just listing some 19th century economics dogmas. Do you have any real world evidence which would suggest a "real" free market health care system would work, especially considering the fact that the systems which currently work better are arguably "less" free market?
We are a capitalistic country and normally the free market works.
In healthcare specifically there would be certain advantages
(1) people could purchase the insurance or the medical services that they want; instead of have over/under insurance based on their job.
(2) medical providers would have a free market system determining price instead of a ...[text shortened]... insurance it is impossible to see whether anyone would be better off with any proposed changes.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe don't have a free market system so I cannot gather evidence about something that exists. I think the free market would likely work better in the US as it is free market country. I even gave you an actually list of some problems with our system that I think would be improved by the free market.
You're just listing some 19th century economics dogmas. Do you have any real world evidence which would suggest a "real" free market health care system would work, especially considering the fact that the systems which currently work better are arguably "less" free market?
Originally posted by quackquackBut do you have any empirical evidence to support your statements?
We don't have a free market system so I cannot gather evidence about something that exists. I think the free market would likely work better in the US as it is free market country. I even gave you an actually list of some problems with our system that I think would be improved by the free market.
If not, why do you believe them?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI did not make a quantitative prediction and I have no idea what you are implying.
But do you have any empirical evidence to support your statements?
If not, why do you believe them?
I don't need numbers to conclude that if more people go to see the doctor and the doctor already has a full schedule that i will have to wait longer to get medical care (in many situations this leads to further discomfort, avoidable sickness and death).
I don't need numbers to conclude that doctors won't want to take insurance that pays less than the going rate. If doctors can get better paying patients elsewhere they won't take garbage insurance.
I don't need numbers to conclude that when an employer picks a level of insurance that often it will create too much or too little insurance for certain employees. It certainly is inconceivable that when someone else picks a plan for you it is always exactly what you would pick yourself.
There is a lot that one can say without having concrete data.
Originally posted by quackquackThe thing is, in economics the theories tend to be pretty vague, so you DO need the numbers.
I did not make a quantitative prediction.
I don't need numbers to conclude that if more people go to see the doctor and the doctor already has a full schedule that i will have to wait longer to get medical.
I don't need numbers to conclude that doctors won't want to take insurance that pays less than the going rate.
I don't need numbers to conclude th ...[text shortened]... insurance that often it will create too much or too little insurance for certain employees.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe current system cost enough that GM and Chysler almost went under. If data on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid tell us anything it is that medical care goes up faster than you can imagine. I would not think it wise to expand such a ststem.
The thing is, in economics the theories tend to be pretty vague, so you DO need the numbers.
In Massachusetts where they are trying something similar to what is being proposed wait times have dramatically increased.
No one knows numerically beforehand how any proposed system will change the current system.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo you are actually contending that with millions of instances of employers offering a small number of choices on the level of coverage that it's even possible that in every case the exact right level of coverage is given? (After all, without the numbers, it's too vague to know).
The thing is, in economics the theories tend to be pretty vague, so you DO need the numbers.
Whatever my employer spends to insure me that will pay for drug or alcohol rehab, I'd personally rather pocket that money myself. That's not vague to me.
Originally posted by techsouthA very good example of something that would be better if we had a free market system.
So you are actually contending that with millions of instances of employers offering a small number of choices on the level of coverage that it's even possible that in [b]every case the exact right level of coverage is given? (After all, without the numbers, it's too vague to know).
Whatever my employer spends to insure me that will pay for ...[text shortened]... g or alcohol rehab, I'd personally rather pocket that money myself. That's not vague to me.[/b]
Those %^&&^ price controls during World War II got us into a mess here.
If I had a magic wand, I would eliminate all employer-based coverage. People would no longer be stuck with only those options chosen by the employer - and they wouldn't have to hold onto a bad job just because they feared losing coverage. (I would also eliminate the other employer-based "benefits" and insist that all compensation was in money form).
But I don't know of any politically realistic way of doing this. At least not unless you had a very long phase-in period.
Be careful when you suppose that the free market is likely better for healthcare. While I tend to be fairly pro-market, there are cases where markets are likely to be inefficient. Healthcare is rife with those sorts of problems, particularly information asymmetry (most notably adverse selection, but also moral hazard). It is not clear that economic theory would support moving to a free market system. It may work or it may not.
Originally posted by MelanerpesIf you aligned the tax laws so that regular people could buy health care with pre-tax dollars, I think the exodus from employer based health care would be fairly quick. Probably they'd have to eliminate some other regulations though so that, for example, a 50 year old unmarried Morman man would have the option to buy health care that doesn't cover pregnacy, alcohol abuse, etc.
Those %^&&^ price controls during World War II got us into a mess here.
If I had a magic wand, I would eliminate all employer-based coverage. People would no longer be stuck with only those options chosen by the employer - and they wouldn't have to hold onto a bad job just because they feared losing coverage. (I would also eliminate the other employer- ...[text shortened]... ically realistic way of doing this. At least not unless you had a very long phase-in period.
Originally posted by techsouthActually, no. What I am saying is that because economic "laws" tend to provide only general ideas at best, it's not enough to simply list some economic ideas and then conclude a certain system will work best in practise. You also need to look at how actual systems in the real world are performing.
So you are actually contending that with millions of instances of employers offering a small number of choices on the level of coverage that it's even possible that in [b]every case the exact right level of coverage is given? (After all, without the numbers, it's too vague to know).
Whatever my employer spends to insure me that will pay for ...[text shortened]... g or alcohol rehab, I'd personally rather pocket that money myself. That's not vague to me.[/b]
It is impossible in the real world to isolate just one variable -- health care systems. As a result I am not sure what looking at other countries systems with every thing else being different would really accomplish. I also have heard countries like Canada have long waiting periods and people who really need/ want treatment come to the United States. I do know that in the US, municpalities are running out of money and as such expanding rights and benfits certainly seems foolish.
Originally posted by quackquackYou can look at a very large number of countries and see what more successful systems have in common. If you do this, you will see that there are completely universal health care systems, single payer health care systems, countries with universal health care which allow private parties to offer health care and semi-privatized systems with mandatory insurance. One thing all these systems have in common is that they have more government "meddling" than the US health care system.
It is impossible in the real world to isolate just one variable -- health care systems. As a result I am not sure what looking at other countries systems with every thing else being different would really accomplish. I also have heard countries like Canada have long waiting periods and people who really need/ want treatment come to the United States. ...[text shortened]... ities are running out of money and as such expanding rights and benfits certainly seems foolish.
The Canadian system has its problems, like any system. But at least every Canadian gets fairly good health care at a much lower price.