Why can't the market deliver healthcare at a low cost?

What dates was there a free market in healtcare?
Who provided this free market?
Are you referring to when people were called doc, because they could treat a wound with a bandaid? And receive a chicken in return for the service?

 

Its the fault of congress. They love other peoples money

 

I am still politically confused, and no I am not a troll, nowhere near one. If you look at my previous posts on here months back, I was very much a progressive, and had a few heated arguments with many of the folks that have posted on this thread, about healthcare, and universal healthcare, social democracy. That is why, when I first joined this forum, I put down the name ProgressivePower. All I am saying is that, I believe there is an argument as to how the government has increased the cost of healthcare, and subsidizes companies, enforcing cronyism, and corporatism, which is also completely anti-competitive.

Do we really have a true free market in healthcare? I do not believe so. If possible in the near future we do have a free market in healthcare, or at the very least a non-monopolized, and freer one, I think that there is a possibility that healthcare can be provided at a low cost, like other commodities which will make it very much more accessible.

If we ever see a free market in healthcare, and it does not lower costs substantially, I will support a universal multi-payer system, one similar to Germany, which universalizes care for everyone, but does not eliminate competition all together, including a low cost profit incentive with private insurance.

 

A more than unusually illogical post. If as you say it is a monopoly market then that is the only place you can go for that product/service then, indeed. if you want that product you are required to go there. And please note that by definition single payer is a monopoly that it is run by the government makes it worse not better.

What my post actually eluded to was that there is no way one can currently effectively obtain both pricing and outcome information in the medical field. This makes preparing before hand based on such information essentially impossible. There is no equivalent of home advisor for medicine.

 

BTW, I hope everything is going well with your heart, and your health.

 

$100 if show me the posts where you discussed these things

 

I also believe this economist Bryan Caplan has a decent idea. His idea is to subsidize care from the government through tax dollars for the poorest, the 5%, and let the free market bring healthcare for the rest of the population, the 95%.

 

under Bush I had my doctors assistant call almost in tears as she could not get UHC to approve my charges and reimburse them

I called UHC and they just said sorry and approved.... insurance companies make this hard, Obama care has nothing to do with it as your still using private insurance companies, Obama never got a public option like he wanted

luckily after ObamaCare passed my company went to BC, so much better - different companies can be as different as night and day

yeah, I know, republicans though ObamaCare would not allow your employer to change your coverage ever again, but that was a myth

 

That's even worse than your mises.org stuff, which just abused neoclassical economics and pretended otherwise. There isn't even one economic argument presented! Ideological prattle.

 

It's just an idea. He obviously believes that the free market can provide care at a low cost, and probably agrees with the Mises article.

All that's different is that, he states, that if even in this free market, individuals cannot afford care, the government could step in and subsidize the care for the poorest.

 

Any thread we’ve discussed it, is where you were given the data showing you are wrong.

 

It's less than that. Ideological prattle sums it up. No attempt at economic justification and a 5% figure plucked out of his backside.

Stick to economic argument! You haven't referred to any yet.

 

Possibly. But there remains a question of WHY. FOR example.... the bush administration extended drug coverage to medicare... but required no bidding. Did that happen because government health care is inherently expensive? Did that happen because of socialist democrats? Ir did that happen because supposedly free market gop legislators got paid off by free market drug company lobbyists?

You seem to be confused. Is the so called free market inherently competitive? If so, why do totally free markets wind up with monopolies and collusion to raise prices?

who has pretended there is

presumably you oppose accrediting doctors hospitals and drugs

sounds like mexico is just the place for you. Do you also feel that air fares Would be lower without the FAA?

Generally i agree
But i suspect that this will be opposed by the usual lobbiests

 

Because when you have the needs of sick and injured people being addressed by an operation whose first purpose according to a S.C. ruling is making the maximum profit for shareholders, you have a blatant conflict of interest.

You also have a serious conflict of interest when you have drug companies trying to make a maximum profit by manufacturing and selling drugs to people to manage their illness rather than cure it and bring their drug purchases to an end.

 

Why can't the market deliver healthcare at a low cost?


LAWYERS

 

Just out of curiosity, have you ever checked into the free market in mail delivery
There are all sorts of delivery services.... not just the government operated usps... and even fed ex, ups, fast track and dhl,
So i have given you 4 free market mail delivery options along with the us post office.... let me guess which one you almost always use ... which is surprising since... as we have agreed, the free market ALWAYS delivers these sorts of commodity services for cheaper.,..or maybe this is a tremendous opportunity for you to go into business offering postal services for a free market price?

 

Yep, much better to have the free market killing people with no come back?

 

I almost never choose USPS when there is an option. USPS still maintains a monopoly on letter delivery but sending any kind of special delivery or parcel is better, cheaper, faster with fed ex or UPS for equivalent services.

 

Post it. STAT

 

Care today is already monopolized. There is relatively few access to care, and limited options.

Direct Primary Care may indeed be the future. It removes insurance all together, and brings back the patient-physician relationship, for a small monthly subscription service for ranging anywhere from 10-100$.

Another problem that the third party insurance model brings, is the absence of price signals, which is present in virtually any other market. With insurance you don't know what you're going to pay, until after, this is not how care should be, and also not how a market should be, furthermore showing a benefit of direct primary care.

 

Why do you insist on having anything other than catastrophic policies?

 

Look at any previous thread. Or don’t. I don’t care. You remain just as wrong in this one, as you were in the others.

 

You fail to refer to international comparison. The US has more choice and greater use of the price mechanism. It is also more costly and less efficient than national health care systems.

 

Catastrophic only policies is all we need.

 

What I am saying is there is no price transparency. This is not good.