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

That's good, because I think that is the plan we are going to get.
Would it be okay if we priced it a little higher than cost and used the excess to help the uninsured?

 

If they can get their clients to voluntarily pay a premium to cover uninsured on the free market, power to them. That is the beauty of the free market, they can do whatever they want as long as its voluntary exchange between the buyers and sellers. If their clientele don't want to pay the premium they can opt to go to a different provider

 

Claiming single payer is better without providing evidence is a worthless endeavor.

You haven't shown anything. The definition of an economic good is "a commodity or service that is useful to man but that must be paid for". Healthcare and health insurance are goods.

I'm doing exactly that. I have a subscription with a direct primary care clinic where I pay for service and they provide the agreed upon service. This is the epitome of a free market.

Nonresponsive

We're talking about healthcare, 90 percent of which is not life threatening situations. For emergency care you can purchase another good in the form of a high deductible insurance policy, also a free market transaction.

Nonresponsive

I've clearly stated that healthcare is a commodity and there is ample proof in the world that it can be treated just like any other market transaction fee for service.

I haven't ignored any data, you've failed to provide any data to support your claim. I merely warned you that should you care to present data to support your claim that data provided by government about their own program wouldn't be convincing as it is subject to a substantial inherent conflict of interest.

 

They're more than goods. They have public good traits and, given asymmetric information, the free market is necessarily destructive. Let's not play textbook pretend now!

 

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.or...tem-would-reduce-us-health-care-costs/2012-11

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

 

Fail. An opinion from 2012 suggesting the author thinks single payer would be better than ACA. I'm arguing that a free market solution would be better than a single payer system.

Fail. This WHO study comes up with a ranking of healthcare "efficiency" based on a tortured mathematical model using 5 criteria as inputs including fairness in financing. Some of the other criteria are questionable but this one is a deal breaker. Including equality of cost as a goal will make any results heavily favor a single payer system as it will by its nature cost the same (at least on paper) for every client. This paper also doesn't actually identify which countries on the list have single payer systems. It doesn't include anything about alternative solutions and finally, it combines 5 criteria into a single number and then ranks the countries according to that number. Even if the list actually showed that single payer systems were better according to the combined number (which it doesn't), that wouldn't indicate that all the individual factors were better in that system than any other.

 

So HHS costs are part of "total"?
Physical Infrastructure?
Tech and digital infrastructure ?
Employee compensation, benefits?
Market analysis?
Fraud prevention and education?

Is that your position?

 

Thats because we are responsible for most of the medical research done on this planet. I'm all for screwing the rest of the world and letting them discover their own drugs.

**** those other countries. Let Africa find it's own cures.

You down?

Whether one sees this as philanthropy on the part of American drug buyers, or free-riding on the part of other wealthy countries who pay much less for the same drugs, America clearly contributes more to pharmaceutical revenue, and hence incentives for new drug development, than its income and population size would suggest.

There are other ways to finance innovation other than high prices, for example through public research (paid by taxes) and philanthropy. At the end of the day, however, evidence conclusively demonstrates that higher expected revenues leads to more drug discovery, with the most recent numbers suggesting that on average every $2.5 billion of additional revenue leads to a new drug approval.3

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/the-global-burden-of-medical-innovation/amp/

Let's face it, without US medical spending, the rest of the planet would be screwed.

Whether we want to continue being the world's leading innovator in medicine is another question. Like I said, I'm all for cutting everyone else off.

 

Because.. ?

 

There is that, but I've been on the purchasing side of bulk items, and you'd be amazed at the corruption that can go along with that. Those salesmen are like Herb Tarlek from wkrp. They will offer anything from a night out on the town on the vender's dime to prostitutes to money under the table. With an order the size of Australia, I imagine the... incentives... are going to be significant.

Doctors in the states will usually prescribe the best that money can buy, unless the patient asks if there are cheaper alternatives, which they rarely do. With your bulk orders, that cheaper alternative is generally going to be the only thing available.

 

Medical research has become an increasingly global endeavor and investments by other countries, particularly in Asia, are eroding U.S. leadership. In 2004, U.S. medical R&D spending represented 57 percent of the global total. By 2014, the U.S. share had fallen to 44 percent with Asia – led by China, Japan, South Korea, India, and Singapore – rapidly making up ground and increasing investment by 9.4 percent per year. If current trends continue, the U.S. will be overtaken by China as the global leader in medical R&D in the next ten years. China has already surpassed the U.S. in terms of the size of its science and technology workforce and global share of patents for medical technologies, and is closing the gap in published biomedical research articles.

 

Go get your degree and start taking care of people symmetrically.

 

Numero Uno
PRICE FIXING. No competition.
the charge for that chest X-Ray or an Aspirin tablet in the hospital
is determined by Hillary's (remember HillaryCare) Health Insurance Industry.

Other schemes too often result in "denial of care"
although there are those M.D.'s who upon "negative" studies
go on to order further "studies".
They can be ID'ed for bad faith practice and dealt with needing no new laws.


Secondly,
Health Care is a power reserved for the States per the 10th
The indigent receiving HealthCare in California before the
Federal's MediCaid 1964 got better quality care.
Romney created RomneyCare in Massachusetts with no Federals needed.
Get the Federals out of indigent medical care beyond Social Security MediCare.


What part do I have incorrect @ProgressivePower


Moi

Don't ize,
A Federation of States,
Not a Union of Provinces.​

Lord bless the 10th.
Can we hold on to it?

 

Imagine if you made sense.

 

Right. As I said. Handwaiving away the evidence won’t actually make it go away. You were just given a peer reviewed paper showing single payer is superior. Feel free to present your own peer reviewed paper proving mine wrong.

 

Uh, they aren’t allowed

 

your papers didn't prove or even address what you claimed. Posting a peer reviewed article that doesn't address the argument isn't proof of anything but your inability to support your claim.

 

To be fair, you've just abused Econ 101

 

Sorry, but “nuh uh” is not a rebuttal to peer reviewed studies.

And you didn’t read either of them.

 

Not rebutting the study, though it was pretty much crap. I'm saying the study isn't applicable to your argument that single payer is better. It doesn't address single payer and it doesn't compare single payer to other alternatives. It isn't relevant to the argument you're failing to make.

 

You didn’t even read it. You are handwaiving it away, like I predicted you would.

It literally shows how and why, and states so In it’s conclusion.

.

And this is how we know you didn’t read it.

 

I think he's complaining about the obfuscatory pedantry you seem to be hiding behind. You don't use analogies or even try explaining what the terms you use actually mean in ordinary language.

I could easily do the same, but I try to keep my audience in mind.

 

We have a single payer system in the US already, it's called the VA. VA medical has been a disaster for decades, yet you want that outcome for everyone? That opinion piece you posted made a LOT of unsupported assumptions on behavior. Many of which go against human nature or societal norms.

 

Imagine if you didn't want other people's stuff